26. Broadly speaking, requirements of the principles shall stand satisfied in the following situations

 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).