Govt. initiates fresh disciplinary action against A.B. Venkateswara Rao
[ad_1]
It requires rationalization for ‘derogatory comments’ against investigating officers
The State authorities has determined to take fresh disciplinary action against IPS officer A.B. Venkateswara Rao, who’s below suspension for misconduct, below Rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969.
It directed Mr. Rao to submit a written assertion of his defence and point out whether or not he wishes to be heard in individual, inside 30 days of the receipt of the order, for giving an evidence on the ‘derogatory comments and accusations’ made by him against the officers who’re investigating the irregularities allegedly dedicated by him within the procurement of aerostat and unmanned aerial car for the Police Department when he was the Additional DGP (intelligence).
According to G.O. Rt No.767, issued by Chief Secretary Aditya Nath Das on Sunday, an enquiry can be held solely in respect of these articles of cost which aren’t admitted, whether it is thought of vital.
Mr. Rao has to confess or deny every a type of costs. Action can be taken against him primarily based on the fabric accessible on file on the bottom that he has no rationalization to supply, if Mr. Rao fails to present a written assertion of defence within the specified time or doesn’t seem in individual earlier than the competent authority or fails or refuses to adjust to the provisions of Rule 8 of All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1969 or the orders or instructions issued in pursuance of the stated rule.
The rule
Mr. Rao’s consideration has been drawn to Rule 18 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 which says no member of the Service ought to convey or try to convey any political or exterior affect to bear upon any superior authority to additional his / her pursuits in respect of the matter pertaining to his / her service below the federal government.
If any illustration is acquired on his behalf from one other individual in respect of any matter handled in these proceedings, will probably be presumed that Mr. Rao is conscious of such a illustration and that it has been made at his occasion and action can be taken against him for violation of Rule 18, it stated.
[ad_2]
