VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

894 DECISION - 490
necessary even in the second class as what is required to be done
after the quashing of the penalty order on account of defect in the
proceedings is to continue the same proceedings from that particular
stage and not initiate any fresh proceedings.
(490)
Revision / Review
Revisional authority has power to order fresh inquiry
by the disciplinary authority.
M.C.Garg vs. Union of India,
2000(2) SLJ CAT Chandigarh 126
The disciplinary proceedings were initiated under rule 16 of
the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 and a penalty of stoppage of one
increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect was imposed
on 19-5-95, on a charge of misappropriation of Rs.700 while working
as Sub-Post Master. The penalty was confirmed in appeal. However,
the revisional authority found the punishment awarded to be
insufficient and passed an order dated 31-10-97 asking the disciplinary
authority to undertake de novo proceedings from the stage of issue
of fresh charge-sheet under rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. The
order was challenged on the ground that rule 29 does not provide for
a de novo inquiry by issuing a fresh charge-sheet and that the
competent authority is not empowered to convert action taken under
rule 16 into the one envisaged under rule 14.
The Central Administrative Tribunal, held that rule 29 makes
it plain that the revisional authority has the power to revise the orders
of the disciplinary authority and to pass such orders as deemed fit in
the circumstances of the case and this will definitely include the power
to order an inquiry.
(491)