VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 34
239
guilty of criminal misconduct in the discharge of his official duties,
and this presumption continues to hold the field unless the contrary
is proved, that is to say, unless the court is satisfied that the statutory
presumption has been rebutted by cogent evidence. Not only that,
the section goes further and lays down in forceful words that “his
conviction therefor shall not be invalid by reason only that it is based
solely on such presumption”.
(34)
Termination — of probationer
Discharge of probationer from service as being
unsuitable to the post on grounds of notoriety for
corruption and unsatisfactory work, attracts Art.
311(2) of Constitution.
State of Bihar vs. Gopi Kishore Prasad,
AIR 1960 SC 689
The question was whether the provisions of Art. 311(2) of
Constitution are attracted to the case of a public servant who was
still a probationer and had not been confirmed in a substantive post.
The Supreme Court held that the provisions of Art. 311 are applicable
to the probationer who had been discharged from service on enquiry,
as being unsuitable to the post on grounds of notoriety for corruption
and unsatisfactory work in the discharge of his public duties.
Though the respondent was only a probationer, he was
discharged from service really because the Government had, on
enquiry, come to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that he was
unsuitable for the post held on probation. This was clearly by way of
punishment and, therefore, he was entitled to the protection under
Art. 311(2) of Constitution. It was argued on behalf of the appellant
that the respondent, being a mere probationer, could be discharged
without any enquiry into his conduct being made and his discharge
could not mean any punishment to him, because he had no right to a