VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

848 DECISION - 450
Rules, 1958 provides for de novo inquiry. The disciplinary authority
initiated proceedings against the Additional Presenting Officer who
closed the evidence after examining himself and did not examine
the complainant and other officers who held the preliminary enquiry.
The High Court held that no prejudice would be caused by
appointing another inquiry officer to conduct the inquiry de novo.
(450)
Suspension — in contemplation of disciplinary
proceedings
Placing under suspension in contemplation of
disciplinary proceedings before superannuation is
in order.
Secretary to Government vs. K.Munniappan,
1998(1) SLJ SC 47
The respondent, Divisional Engineer (National Highways),
Salem, before being superannuated, was placed under suspension
on the ground that an inquiry into grave criminal offence is
contemplated. The Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal set aside the
order on 25-6-96 on the ground that the rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu
Civil Services (CCA) Rules does not empower the appellant to
suspend the respondent pending such an inquiry.
The Supreme Court held that a member of a service may be
placed under suspension, where an inquiry into grave charge against
him is “contemplated” or “is pending” or a complaint against him of
any criminal offence is under investigation or trial and if such
suspension is necessary in the public interest. Actual pendency of
enquiry is not a pre-condition to suspend an officer. Pending further
investigation into the offences is one of the grounds. If the officer is
allowed to retire, there would be no occasion to take effective steps
to satisfactorily tackle the enormity of the crime which involves
embezzlement of funds of the Government to the tune of Rs. 7.82