VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

834 DECISION - 435
one of the officers was wrongly given the lesser penalty, it cannot be
held that they too should also be given the lesser penalty. Omission
to repeat the same mistake would not be violative of Article 14 and
cannot be held as arbitrary or discriminatory leading to miscarriage
of justice. It may be open to the appropriate higher authority to look
into the matter and take appropriate decision according to law.
(435)
Misconduct — good and sufficient reasons
Police Constable appearing before Sub-Inspector
in drunken condition constitutes good and sufficient
reason for initiating disciplinary proceedings
Government of Tamil Nadu vs. S. Vel Raj,
1997(2) SLJ SC 32
The respondent, Police Constable, when he appeared before
the Sub-Inspector at 8 P.M. on 7-7-84 was on duty. At that time he
was found in a drunken condition and was in ‘mufti’. He had even
admitted before the S.I. that he had consumed ‘arrack’ and it was for
that reason that he was smelling of alcohol.
On the question that the said acts of the Constable did not
constitute any misconduct, Supreme Court observed that what was
required to be considered is whether there was ‘good and sufficient
reason’ for initiating a disciplinary proceedings against him and that
his behaviour has to be regarded as an act of gross misconduct and
upheld the order of the departmental appellate authority enhancing
the penalty of reversion to a lower grade to one of compulsory
retirement.
(436)
Preliminary enquiry
Preliminary enquiry loses relevance after initiation
of full-fledged disciplinary inquiry.