VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

284 DECISION - 65
It was contended by the petitioners that they were prejudiced
by a common enquiry. The High Court of Mysore rejected this
contention and held that the mere fact that a common inquiry was
conducted cannot by itself lead to any prejudice.
The High Court further held that a delinquent’s right of appeal
arises only if an order is passed by the authority and not otherwise.
The delinquent has no indefeasible right to have misconduct of his
inquired into only by a particular authority. If by proper exercise of
the power under the Rules, the Government declares itself to be the
disciplinary authority, the delinquent cannot successfully contend that
the inquiry should have been held by an inferior authority so that he
may have a right of appeal.
(65)
(A) Principles of natural justice — bias
An illustrative case of bias or malafides in departmental
inquiries.
(B) Departmental action and prosecution
Where charges constitute criminal offences,
institution of departmental inquiry does not violate
Art. 14 of Constitution.
(C) Evidence — tape-recorded
Tape-recorded talks are admissible as evidence.
(D) Suspension — for continuance in service
(E) Retirement — power to compel continuance in
service
Government cannot compel an officer to continue
in service against his will after age of superannuation
was reached or after term of appointment was over,
by placing him under suspension.
S. Partap Singh vs. State of Punjab,
AIR 1964 SC 72
The appellant, a Civil Surgeon under the Punjab Government,