VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 459
855
appointed and should have been concluded under 1963 Rules. If the
memo of charge has been served for the first time before 1991, there
would have been no difficulty. However, in the present case it could
be only an irregularity and not an illegality vitiating the inquiry
proceedings in as much as after the Inquiry Officer was appointed
under memo dated 22-12-87, there had not been any progress. If a
fresh memo was issued on the same charges against the delinquent
officer it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to him.
(459)
Pension Rules — withholding pension and recovery from
pension
(i) Unauthorised absence is a grave misconduct and
full pension can be withheld.
(ii) Pension can be withheld for misconduct other
than causing pecuniary loss also.
Union of India vs. B.Dev,
1998(4) SLR SC 744
The charge, as framed expressly charged the respondent
with having committed grave misconduct by remaining absent from
duty without authorisation and by continuing to disobey Government
orders issued to him for joining duty. He was charged with lack of
devotion to duty and of conduct unbecoming a Government servant.
The finding also is that the charge of grave misconduct has been
proved. Supreme Court held that the conduct falls under rule 9 of
the CCS (Pension) Rules and full pension can be withheld.
Under the explanation (b) to Rule 8 the expression ‘grave
misconduct’ is defined “to include the communication or disclosure
of any secret official code or password or any sketch, plan, model,
article, note, document or information, such as is mentioned in section
5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923.....” The explanation clearly extends
grave misconduct to cover communication of any official secrets. It