26. Broadly speaking, requirements of the principles shall stand satisfied in the following situations
126. Where the
advice of the Central Vigilance Commission is taken into consideration, a copy
thereof is supplied to the charged officer (State Bank of India v. D.C.
Aggrawal, 1992 AIR SCW 335].
127. If the
inquiry officer has held the charges as not proved but the disciplinary
authority intends to disagree with him, he has to send a copy of the report of
inquiry to the charged employee along with its tentative opinion giving a show
cause notice to the charged employee for making his submissions [Narayan Misra
v. State of Orissa, 1969 SLR (SC) 657]. Specific reasons for disagreement must
be mentioned in the show cause notice [Ram Kishen v. Union of India, (1995) 7
JT (SC) 43].
128. The matter is
considered by the disciplinary authority with an open mind and the final
decision is taken by proper application of mind [Bhibuti Bhusan Pal v. State,
AIR 1967 Cal. 29). Where the disciplinary authority acted upon the advice of
the Central Vigilance Commission in a mechanical manner, the order of penalty
was quashed by the Supreme Court [Nagraj Karjagi v. Syndicate Bank, AIR 1991 SC
1507].
129. The decision
must not be influenced by any extraneous material collected behind the back of
the charge employee and not disclosed to him [State of Assam v. M.K. Das, SLR
1970 SC 444).
130. The punishment imposed is not totally arbitrary or perverse /State of Haryana v. Parmananda, AIR 1989 SC 1185).
Post a Comment