J. CHELAMESWAR, B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, P. S. NARAYANA, J, J.

( 1 ) I had the advantage of going through the judgments rendered by both my learned brothers. Both of them arrived at the same conclusion, but for slightly different reasons.

( 2 ) I prefer to add a couple of sentences of my own while agreeing with the conclusion of my learned brother. The importance of a disciplinary enquiry or a departmental enquiry in Service jurisprudence need not be over emphasized. In view of the importance of the question involved in the present matter, the Division bench thought it fit to refer the matter thus inviting a decision on the said point. The learned Counsel on record made elaborate submissions in relation to the language employed in Rule 19 of the A. P. Civil services (Classification, Control and Appeal) rules, 1963, and Rule 20 of the amended rules of 1991. Certain submissions were made even in relation to the meaning of "cause to be drawn" and also incidentally rule 21 of the 1991 Rules and certain clarificatory memos and the G. Os. , in relation thereto issued by the Government also had been pointed out. In the light of the reasons in detail recorded by my learned brother, the said reasons need not be repeated again. Rule 19 of the A. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as old Rules ) reads as hereunder: (1) No order imposing on a member of a service a penalty specified in items (i), (ii), (iii), (v) or (ix) of Rule 8 or Rule 9 shall be passed except after- (a) the member of the service is informed in writing by the authority competent to impose penalty of the proposal to take action in regard to him and of the allegations on which the action is proposed to be taken, and is given an opportunity to make any representation he may wish to make to such authority; and (b) such representation if any, is taken into consideration by the authority competent to impose the penalty: provided that where it is proposed, after an enquiry, to impose any of the above penalties, it shall not be necessary to give the person charged any opportunity of making a representation against the penalty and the penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during the enquiry. (Proviso added by G. O. Ms. No. 285 Ser-C, dated 15-4-1980) (2) (a) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Public Servants Inquiries Act, 1850 (Central Act 37 of 1850) in every case where it is proposed to impose on a member of a service any of the penalties, specified in items (iv), (vi), (vii) and (viii) in rule 8, the authority competent to impose the penalty shall appoint an inquiry officer, who shall be superior in rank to the person on whom it is proposed to impose the penalty or shall itself hold an inquiry either suo moto on a direction from a higher authority. In every such case the grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced to the form of definite charge or charges, which shall be communicated to the person charged, together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and of any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders in the case. He shall be required, within a reasonable time, to file a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires an oral inquiry or to be heard in person or both. The person charged may, for the purpose of preparing his defence, be permitted to inspect, and take extracts from, such official records as he may specify, provided that the inquiry officer may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse such permission, if, in his opinion, such records are not relevant for the purpose or it is against public interest to allow access thereto. On receipt of the statement of defence within the specified time or such further time as may have been given, an oral inquiry shall be held if such an inquiry is desired by the person charged or is decided upon by the inquiry officer or is dire

Click Here to Read the rest of this document