VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 129
371
the discussion contained in his report that the inquiry officer was in
any way influenced by the consultations that he had with the Anti-
Corruption Branch. If so, it could not be held that the inquiry
proceedings were violative of the principles of natural justice.
(128)
Order — imposing penalty
Order, quasi-judicial in nature, must be a speaking
order and record reasons.
Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,
AIR 1970 SC 1302
The appellant held a license under the Uttar Pradesh Sugar
Dealer’s Licensing Order, 1962 to deal in sugar as whole sale
distributors. The District Magistrate cancelled the order.
The Supreme Court, while disposing of an appeal against
the order of the District Magistrate, held that recording of reasons in
support of a decision by a quasi-judicial authority is obligatory as it
ensures that the decision is reached according to law and is not a
result of caprise, whim or fancy or reached on ground of policy or
expediency. The necessity to record reasons is greater if order is
subject to appeal
(129)
(A) Departmental action and conviction
(B) Departmental action — afresh, on conviction
(C) Double jeopardy
Government have no power to hold departmental
inquiry again on the basis of the conviction by
criminal court, when a departmental inquiry was held
earlier and Government servant was found guilty.