VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 469
869
submissions to make or defence to offer, and it was published in
newspapers of wide circulation. Thereafter the U.P.S.C. gave its
advice concurring with the finding of the Inquiry Officer that the charge
has been established and the opinion that the penalty of dismissal
would meet the ends of justice. Thereupon, the disciplinary authority,
by order dated 7-11-1996, imposed the penalty of dismissal. The
applicant challenged the order on the ground that a copy of the advice
of the UPSC was not sent to him before imposing the penalty and he
was not examined with regard to the evidence under rule 14(18) of
CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore recounted
the efforts made by the disciplinary authority as mentioned above
and that in the circumstances the applicant can not have any
grievance about the proceedings having been taken ex parte. The
Tribunal held that even though the copy of advice of the UPSC was
not sent to the applicant before the punishment order was passed by
the disciplinary authority that order cannot straightaway be quashed
on that ground unless the lapse has caused prejudice. Even if a
copy of the advice had been sent it would not have been received by
the applicant and it would have come back and no purpose would
have been served by sending it to the applicant’s last known address.
It would have been an idle formality. Non-compliance with the
formality did not cause any prejudice
The Tribunal also held that it cannot be said that merely
because Rule 14(18) is not complied with, the order gets vitiated
without proof of prejudice and that in the circumstances of the case
no prejudice was caused.
(469)
Pension Rules — four-year limitation
Disciplinary proceedings, where the order of penalty
was quashed, can be continued after retirement,
without bar of four-year limitation.
Ram Charan Singh vs. Union of India,