VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

392 DECISION - 146
The public servant contended before the Delhi High Court
that because a memorandum had been issued to him under rule 14
for major penalty proceedings, it was incumbent on the disciplinary
authority to have proceeded with the detailed oral inquiry even if on
perusal of the charged officer’s reply, the disciplinary authority
concluded that only minor penalty was called for. This contention
was not accepted by the High Court. The High Court pointed out that
all that was to be ensured in such disciplinary proceedings was that
the Government servant is given reasonable opportunity of fully
representing his case against the penal action proposed to be taken.
Since in the particular case there was no reason to doubt that such
reasonable opportunity was actually given to the charged officer, the
High Court dismissed the writ petition.
(146)
Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944
(i) District Judge passing interim attachment order
under sec. 4 of the Criminal Law Amendment
Ordinance, 1944 is a Criminal Court and as such
High Court has powers to stay the proceedings.
(ii) Respondent not entitled to plead and prove that
the property attached is not ill-gotten and he has
not committed any scheduled offence, in the
attachment proceedings.
State of Hyderabad vs. K. Venkateswara Rao,
1973 Cri.L.J. A.P. 1351
The Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that the District
Judge, empowered to pass interim attachment order under sec. 4
Criminal law Amendment ordinance 1944 is a Criminal Court and as
such a court subordinate to the High Court under the Code of Cr.P.C.
1898. Sec. 561-A Cr.P.C. therefore, is attracted to attachment
proceedings under the said Ordinance and the High Court has powers
to stay the said proceedings to secure ends of justice. The High
Court further observed that while it is true that under sec.4(2) of the