One Day, One Minute, One Rule – 400 What instructions were issued by the Directorate regarding promotions to the Higher Selection Grade-I (Non-Functional Grade) [HSG-I (NFG)] in light of the proposed merger of the Postmaster cadre with the general line?

 TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -278

Where some charges are proved. 
1081. Where some charges are proved but others are not proved, the punishment may be awarded on the basis of the charges that are proved. The mere fact that some of the charges are not proved will not vitiate the order if the order can be supported by the proved charges. However, the courts can look into the matter to satisfy themselves that the order had been made on the basis of relevant and existing material to the exclusion of irrelevant and non-existing grounds [State of Orissa v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra, AIR 1963 SC 779; State of Maharashtra v. B.K. Tekkomore, AIR 1967 SC 1353].

Taking into account past misconducts. 
1082. It is not permissible to take into account any past misconduct or bad record of the charged employee to decide whether any particular charge is proved or not. The reason is that the commission or omission of any particular happening is to be proved on the basis of available evidence only and the past record or character of the person has nothing to do with the question. To base the proof of a charge on the reputation of the employee is to enter into the realm of suspicion and conjecture (State of Madras v. A. R. Srinivasan, AIR 1966 SC 1827]. However, any proved past misconduct of the employee may be taken into account to decide the quantum of punishment.

The advice of the Chief Vigilance Officer of the organization is not binding on the disciplinary authority. 
1083. In a case where the rules required that the Chief Vigilance Officer will be consulted before imposing the penalty, the disciplinary authority was of the opinion that ‘reduction in rank’ was the appropriate penalty but the Chief Vigilance Officer advised that penalty of removal from service be imposed and this penalty was finally imposed, the Supreme Court directed that the disciplinary authority should reconsider the case keeping in mind that the advice of the Chief Vigilance Officer was not binding [Satyendra Chandra Jain v. Punjab National Bank, (1997)11 SCC 444].

The disciplinary authority must not act under directions from above. 
1084. Disciplinary proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature and, hence, the disciplinary authority must apply its own mind and decide the matter in his best judgment. In a case where the higher authority who was superior even to the appellate authority directed the disciplinary authority to cancel a charge sheet issued for minor penalty action and instead to issue a charge sheet for the major penalty of dismissal, it was held that such an order caused bias and violated principles of natural justice [Ram Nath Prasad case, (1983)1 Cal. 409).