VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

308 DECISION - 81
purports to act as a Judge in receiving a bribe, though the judgment
which he delivers may be such an act; nor does a Government medical
officer act or purport to act as a public servant in picking the pocket
of a patient whom he is examining, though the examination itself
may be such an act. The test may well be whether the public servant,
if challenged, can reasonably claim that, what he does, he does in
virtue of his office.”
The Supreme Court held that sanction of the State
Government was not necessary for the prosecution of the appellant
under section 409 IPC because the act of criminal misappropriation
was not committed by him while he was acting or purporting to act in
the discharge of his official duties and that the offence has no direct
connection with his duties as a public servant and the official status
of his only furnished him with an occasion or an opportunity of
committing the offence.
(81)
(A) Inquiry Officer — powers and functions
(B) Witnesses — cross-examination by Charged Officer
(C) Evidence — defence evidence
Inquiring authority can refuse permission to charged
officer to examine defence witnesses who are
thoroughly irrelevant and control cross-examination
of prosecution witnesses.
State of Bombay vs. Nurul Latif Khan,
AIR 1966 SC 269
The respondent was Treasury Officer at Nagpur in the State
Service of Madhya Pradesh Government. The question for
consideration was whether the appellant has given reasonable
opportunity to the respondent to defend himself before it passed the
final order on 6-6-52 compulsorily retiring him from service under
Art. 353 Civil Service Regulations. The respondent in reply to the