VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 475
877
he ceased to be a member of the service on 30-9-95 and he is no
more governed by AIS (D&A) Rules, 1969 and that no fresh inquiry
could be instituted against him.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings were initiated before
his retirement on 30-9-95 and that the judgment of the Tribunal dated
9-2-96 by which liberty has been granted to initiate action afresh
from the stage of supplying of CVC report will be covered by Rule
6(1)(a) of the AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958 as these proceedings would
be in continuation of the old proceedings which were initiated while
he was in service.
(475)
Vigilance Commission — consultation with
Taking decision in consultation with Vigilance
Commission does not mean non-application of mind
by disciplinary authority.
Narinder Singh vs. Railway Board,
1999(3) SLJ CAT New Delhi 61
The Tribunal held: The notings show that the disciplinary
authority, while passing the impugned order dismissing the applicant
from service has indeed considered and reconsidered the matter
carefully in consultation with the concerned officials in the department
and the Central Vigilance Commission, and merely because finally,
the disciplinary authority agreed with the recommendations of the
CVC does not ipso facto mean that he felt that it was an obligation on
his part to accept the advice of the CVC as there was no such
compulsion on him.
In the circumstances of the case and in the absence of materials
on record to warrant the conclusion urged by the applicant, the Tribunal
held that it cannot agree that the decision of the disciplinary authority to
order dismissal of the applicant from service was a decision without
application of mind on the dictates of the CVC.