VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 93
325
the Report issued a show-cause notice. The appellant challenged
the enquiry on the ground that as the Commissioner was made
corporation sole under section 80 of the Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Act as a separate and independent
personality, he was not subject to the control of the Government and
no disciplinary proceedings could be initiated against him, for acts
and omissions with regard to his work as Commissioner under the
said Act and that the orders made by him as Commissioner being of
quasi-judicial character, could be impugned only in appropriate
proceedings under the Act.
The Supreme Court held that Government was entitled to
institute disciplinary proceedings if there was prima-facie material
for showing recklessness or misconduct on his part in the discharge
of official duties. What was sought to be challenged was not the
correctness or legality of the decision of the Commissioner, but the
conduct of the appellant in the discharge of his duties as
Commissioner. It is not necessary that the alleged act or omission
which forms the basis of disciplinary proceedings should have been
committed in the discharge of his duties as a servant of the
Government. In other words, if the act or omission is such as to
reflect on the reputation of the officer for his integrity or good faith or
devotion to duty, there is no reason why disciplinary proceedings
should not be taken against him for that act or omission even though
the act or omission relates to an activity in regard to which there is no
actual master and servant relationship. The test is whether the act
or omission has reasonable connection with the nature and conditions
of his service or whether the act or omission has cast any reflection
upon the reputation of the member of the service for integrity or
devotion to duty as a public servant.
(93)
Post — change of
Transfer of a Government servant from the post of