05.04.2013 Views

VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

258 DECISION - 46<br />

A disciplinary enquiry was instituted against the petitioner<br />

Tahsildar. The main charge related to his conduct while functioning<br />

as the original Tenancy Court under the Bombay Tenancy and<br />

Agricultural Lands Act with reference to certain suits. The Enquiry<br />

Officer found that the charges could not be held proved. The State<br />

Government, however, issued a show cause notice holding the<br />

charges as proved and called upon him to explain why the penalty of<br />

reduction should not be imposed. On receipt of his reply, the Public<br />

Service Commission was consulted and a penalty of reduction to the<br />

minimum of Tahsildar’s grade for a period of 3 years was imposed.<br />

The High Court held that where a judicial officer (Mamalatdar)<br />

is charged with actual misconduct amounting to abuse of his authority<br />

consisting in bias in favour of one of the litigants, disciplinary enquiry<br />

does not amount to executive interference with the judicial functions<br />

of the officer. The Judicial Officers Protection Act and the provisions<br />

contained in the penal law of the country providing for prosecution of<br />

Judicial Officers for certain offences in connection with the<br />

administration of justice have no bearing on the question whether<br />

such officers are or are not amenable to disciplinary control by their<br />

administrative superior.<br />

(46)<br />

Termination — of temporary service<br />

When the services of a temporary servant are<br />

terminated by giving a simple notice under<br />

Temporary Service Rules, placing a ban on his future<br />

employment is bad in law.<br />

Krishan Chander Nayar vs. Chairman, Central Tractor Organisation,<br />

AIR 1962 SC 602<br />

The petitioner was a machineman. His services were terminated<br />

on 16-9-54 under rule 5 of the Temporary Service Rules by giving him a<br />

month’s pay in lieu of notice. When the petitioner applied for various jobs<br />

he learnt that the respondent had placed a ban on his joining a Government<br />

service. He made a representation against it and the same was rejected.<br />

He filed a petition but it was dismissed by the High Court in lumine.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!