1000 TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -150
626. There is no legal obligation to give a statement in preliminary enquiry.
OA No. 1432/93 K.Hameeduddin X SPOs. DOJ 27.04.1994 (Hyderabad).
6.Government of India, M.H.A., O.M. No. F.39/30/54-Ests., dated 7.6.1955 and No. 39/8-64-Ests. (A), dated 4.9.1964 stipulate that prosecution should be the general rule in all cases involving loss of substantial public funds.
In such cases immediate report to the police is obligatory. Same action is required to be taken in cases of armed burglary, highway robbery, assaults on the official on duty by members of public or where there is likelihood of the accused absconding
627. In case if a Govt servant is convicted in a criminal court, what he should do?
If a Government servant convicted in a criminal court, he should immediately inform his official superiors of the fact of his conviction and the circumstances connected therewith. Failure on the part of any Government servant to furnish such information to his official superiors will be regarded as suppression of material information and will render him liable to disciplinary action on this ground alone, apart from the penalty called for on the basis of the offence on which his conviction was based.
(G. I. D. (1) below Rule 3)
628. Preliminary inquiry is not a must
The preliminary inquiry is not in the interest of the delinquent officer but for the satisfaction of the Department.
[A.N. Singh v. Addl. Supdt. of Police, AIR 1960 All. 304]
629. Preliminary inquiry is no substitute for departmental inquiry
A formal departmental inquiry becomes unnecessary only if the delinquent employee makes a full confession during preliminary stage, otherwise the formal inquiry cannot be dispensed with.
[J.N. Biswas v. Superintendent of Police, AIR 1954 Cal. 383; Meghraj V. State AIR 1956 Raj. 28 (DB).]
630. Confession at the stage of preliminary investigation will not obviate regular inquiry
If any statement is made during preliminary inquiry, then its copy should be supplied to the employee concerned and he should be given a chance to explain or rebut the said evidence. In the absence of any such inquiry it will not be fair to strain the facts and to hold that in view of the admissions the inquiry will not serve any useful purpose.
[Jagdish prasad Saxena v. State of M.B., AIR 1961 SC 1070; (1963)1 LLJ 325.]
Post a Comment