VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

274 DECISION - 58
The Deputy Commissioner by order dated 17-3-55 ordered that his
services be terminated forthwith and that in lieu of notice he will get
one month’s pay as required by the Rules.
The Supreme Court observed that the appellant was a
temporary employee and his employment was liable to be terminated
by notice of one month without assigning any reasons. The Deputy
Commissioner, however, did not act in exercise of this authority. The
appellant was served with a charge-sheet setting out his
misdemeanour, an inquiry was held and his employment was
terminated because in the view of the Officer the misdemeanour was
proved. Such a termination amounted to casting “a stigma effecting
his future career”. Since the appellant was not given reasonable
opportunity against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him
as required by Art. 311 of Constitution, the order of termination would
not be sustainable. It cannot be said that the enquiry was made by
the officer for the purpose of ascertaining whether the servant who is
a temporary employee should be continued in service or should be
discharged under the terms of the employment by giving one month’s
notice. In this case, an inquiry was made into alleged misconduct
with the object of ascertaining whether disciplinary action should be
taken against him for alleged misdemeanour. It is clearly an enquiry
for the purpose of taking punitive action including dismissal or removal
from service, if the appellant is found to have committed the
misdemeanour charged against him.
(58)
P.C. Act, 1988 — Sec. 11
A Government servant under administrative
subordination of the officer before whom an appeal
is pending, accepting illegal gratification in respect
of that matter commits an offence under section