VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 65
285
was granted leave preparatory to retirement in Dec. 1960. On 3-6-
61, appellant’s leave was revoked and simultaneous orders recalling
him to duty and suspending him from service were issued as it was
decided to hold departmental enquiry against him. He challenged
these orders in the High Court by a writ petition but it was dismissed
and he filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. His main contentions
were that the orders were contrary to Service Rules and even if they
were not so, they were void on the ground of malafide, having been
passed by or at the instance of the Chief Minister who was hostile to
him.
The Supreme Court held that the service rules which are
statutory vest the power to pass the impugned orders on the
Government. In the instant case, the functionary who took action
and on whose instructions the action was taken against the appellant
was undoubtedly the Chief Minister and if that functionary was
actuated by malafides in taking that action it is clear that such action
would be vitiated. In the circumstances, the Supreme Court is
satisfied that the dominent motive which induced the Government to
take action against the appellant was not to take disciplinary
proceedings against him for misconduct which it bonafide believed
he had committed, but to wreak vengeance on him for incurring wrath.
The Supreme Court held that the impugned orders were vitiated by
malafides, in that they were motivated by an improper purpose which
was outside that for which the power or discretion was conferred on
Government and the said orders should therefore be set aside.
Tape-recorded talks have been produced as part of
supporting evidence by the appellant. The High Court practically put
them out of consideration for the reason that tape-recordings were
capable of being tampered with. The Supreme Court did not agree
with the view and observed that there are few documents and possibly
no piece of evidence which could not be tampered with, but that
would certainly not be a ground on which courts could reject evidence
as inadmissible or refuse to consider it. In the ultimate analysis the
factor mentioned would have a bearing on the weight to be attached
to the evidence and not in its admissibility. The Supreme Court