VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

876 DECISION - 474
decision in S. Govinda Menon vs. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC
1274, where the Supreme Court rejected the contention of the
appellant that the proceedings initiated against him were without
jurisdiction as no disciplinary proceedings could be taken against
him for action of omission with regard to the work as Commissioner
under the enactment and the orders made by him being quasi-judicial
in nature and that it can be impugned only in appropriate proceedings
taken under the Act. The Tribunal also referred to the decision in
Union of India vs. K.K. Dhawan, 1993(1) SLR SC 700, where the
Supreme Court gave guidelines of the types of cases involving
exercise of quasi-judicial power, in which disciplinary action can be
taken. The Tribunal found no merit in the contentions of the applicant
and dismissed the application.
(474)
Pension Rules — continuation of invalid proceedings
Proceedings set aside on the ground of non-supply
of copy of CVC report can be continued after
retirement from service.
Amarnath Batabhyal vs. Union of India,
1999(2) SLJ CAT Mumbai 42
The applicant, an I.A.S. Officer, was imposed the penalty of
compulsory retirement on 19-4-89 and the order was set aside by
the Tribunal on 25-1-91 on the ground that a copy of the inquiry report
was not furnished to him. The applicant was reinstated and placed
under suspension and the disciplinary proceedings were continued
and an order was passed compulsorily retiring him from service on
24-2-94. Again the Tribunal set aside the order on the ground of
non-supply of a copy of CVC report. In the meantime he retired from
service on superannuation on 30-9-95. He was issued a fresh order
dated 15-11-96 continuing the proceedings. It was contended that