VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

332 DECISION -99
the Chancellor. Dr. Bool Chand did make a representation which
was considered and his tenure was determined because in the view
of the Chancellor it was not in the public interest to retain him as
Vice-Chancellor. He was informed of the grounds of the proposed
termination of the tenure of his office and an order declaring the
reasons was passed. The appellant had the fullest opportunity of
making his representation and the inquiry held by the Chancellor
was not vitiated because of violation of the rules of natural justice.
The appellant contended before the Supreme Court that the
Chancellor had no power to terminate the tenure of office of Vice-
Chancellor which the Statutes prescribed shall ordinarily be for a
period of three years. The Supreme Court held that absence of a
provision setting up procedure for determining the employment of
the Vice-Chancellor in the Act or Statutes or Ordinances does not
lead to the inference that the tenure of office of a Vice-Chancellor is
not liable to be determined. A power to appoint ordinarily implies a
power to determine the employment.
(99)
(A) Suspension — continuance of
(B) Suspension — effect of acquittal
Order suspending an official pending further orders
is not automatically terminated on the criminal
prosecution ending in acquittal, until terminated by
another order.
Balvantrai Ratilal Patel vs. State of Maharashtra,
AIR 1968 SC 800
The appellant was a member of the Bombay Medical Service
Class II and as such was an employee of the State of Maharashtra.
He was trapped when he received Rs. 50 as illegal gratification for
issuing a certificate on 20-1-50. The Civil Surgeon issued the following