VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 120
359
him and placed him under suspension and issued a show cause
notice on 1-8-64. But before this date, i.e., on 6-6-64 he had given
a notice to the Government terminating his services and this notice
was in accordance with the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants
(Temporary and Quasi-Permanent Service) Rules. He challenged
the action of the State Government in proceeding against him and
placing him under suspension on the ground that he had ceased to
be their employee.
The Supreme Court ruled that the notice given by him
terminating his services satisfied all the requirements of the Rules
and hence he ceased to be in Government service with effect from
the date of the notice and it was not open to the Government to take
disciplinary action against him. The Supreme Court observed that
the appellant had intimated that any amount payable by him to the
Government under the proviso to rule 12(a) may be forfeited from
the amounts due to him from the Government and considerable
amount must have been due to him towards his salary during the
period of suspension and held that the High Court was wrong in
holding that the notice in question did not comply with the
requirements of the said rules.
(120)
(A) Departmental action and adverse remarks
(B) Witnesses — of prosecution, non-examination of
Where a departmental inquiry was based on
adverse confidential reports and the authors of the
confidential reports were not examined during the
inquiry, it was held that it amounts to denial of
reasonable opportunity.
State of Punjab vs. Dewan Chuni Lal,
1970 SLR SC 375
The respondent was Sub-Inspector of Police in the State of