VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 142
387
passed the check-post and the appellant who was present at the
check-post allowed the lorries to pass after accepting a bribe of
Rs.200 from one Kishan Rao, who was following the lorries. On
receipt of a complaint, the Tahsildar concerned visited the checkpost
and found that the appellant had not entered the movement of
the lorries in the register. Proceedings were initiated against him
and the Inquiry Officer held the charges as proved and the appellant
was removed from service. Having lost his case before the appellate
authority as well as the civil court, the appellant approached the
Andhra Pradesh High Court.
Before the High Court, it was urged on his behalf that he had
furnished a list of nine witnesses whom he wished to examine in his
defence but the Inquiry Officer did not allow him to produce them on
the ground that they were not present on the spot when the alleged
incident took place. One of the nine witnesses cited by him was
Kishan Rao from whom he had allegedly accepted the bribe. The
High Court held that the Inquiry Officer’s refusal to examine the
witnesses cited by him merely because he thought that they were
not present on the spot when the incident took place was not in order.
It was not clear from the record of enquiry on what material the Inquiry
Officer came to the conclusion that they were not present at the spot.
The appeal was therefore allowed quashing the order passed in the
proceeding.
(142)
Suspension — administrative in nature
Subordinate passing order of suspension at the
instance of superior authority, not bad, where both
the subordinate and the superior authority are
competent. Order of suspension is an
administrative order and not a quasi-judicial order.
M. Nagalakshmiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh,
1973(2) SLR AP 105