05.04.2013 Views

VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

DECISION - 125<br />

367<br />

from the date of communication and it is immaterial when he actually<br />

receives the order. The ordinary meaning of the word ‘communicate’<br />

is to impart, confer or transmit information. It is the communication<br />

of the order which is essential and not its actual receipt by the officer<br />

concerned and such communication is necessary because till the<br />

order is issued and actually sent out to the person concerned, the<br />

authority making such order would be in a position to change its<br />

mind and modify it if it thought fit. But once such an order is sent out,<br />

it goes out of the control of such authority and, therefore, there would<br />

be no chance whatsoever of its changing its mind or modifying it.<br />

The word ‘communicate’ cannot be interpreted to mean that the order<br />

would become effective only on its receipt by the concerned servant<br />

unless the provision in question expressly so provides. Actually<br />

knowledge by him of an order where it is one of dismissal, may,<br />

perhaps, become necessary because of certain consequences. But<br />

such consequences would not occur in the case of an officer who has<br />

proceeded on leave and against whom an order of suspension is<br />

passed because in his case there is no question of his doing any act<br />

or passing any order and such act or order being challenged as invalid.<br />

(125)<br />

(A) P.C. Act, 1988 — Secs. 7, 13(1)(d)<br />

(B) Trap — appreciation of evidence<br />

Appreciation of evidence and rejection of defence<br />

plea in a trap case.<br />

Jotiram Laxman Surange vs. State of Maharastra,<br />

AIR 1970 SC 356<br />

The accused, a secretary of a Gram Panchayat and also<br />

Talati was alleged to have taken a certain sum as bribe from the<br />

complainant for substituting the name of the complainant as the owner<br />

of certain plot of land, in the revenue records. The accused raised<br />

the plea that the money, he took from the complainant was not by

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!