VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

218 DECISION -21
Mubarak Ali vs. State,
AIR 1958 MP 157
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh rejected the contention
of the Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State that the
report lodged by the complainant was only about the attempt to obtain
illegal gratification, which is different from an offence under sec. 161
IPC (corresponding to sec. 7 of the P.C.Act, 1988) and that the offence
is not completed till the bribe is accepted. The High Court held that
mere demand or solicitation by a public servant amounts to the
commission of an offence under sec. 161 IPC. The High Court
observed that according to the report lodged with the Police, the
accused, Assistant Station Master, is alleged to have asked for a
bribe of annas 8 per box from the complainant and that if this fact is
true, the accused has committed an offence under sec. 161 IPC.
(21)
(A) Departmental action and prosecution
Departmental Inquiry resulting in exoneration is no
bar for launching prosecution on same facts.
(B) Fresh inquiry / De novo inquiry
Second Departmental Inquiry on same facts on
which Public servant was earlier exonerated,
possible only if there is specific provision to that
effect in the Service Rules or Law.
(C) Misconduct — of disciplinary authority
Disciplinary authority can even be dismissed for
holding inquiry in slipshod manner or dishonestly.
Dwarkachand vs. State of Rajasthan,
AIR 1958 RAJ 38
The applicant was a clerk, when a complaint was received
that he had accepted illegal gratification. He was arrested by the
Anti-Corruption Branch and released on bail and the Collector placed
him under suspension. The Anti-Corruption Branch asked for sanction
of the Collector to prosecute the applicant, but the Collector held a