VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

406 DECISION - 158
opportunity to explain the various flaws noticed in the assessment
orders and the inquiry was not vitiated simply because it was not
conducted like a court trial.
In respect of one charge, however, the Inquiry Officer had
caused some enquiries regarding immovable properties of the
appellant without associating him with those enquiries. The Supreme
Court pointed out that the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer
about this charge on the basis of private enquiries conducted by him
behind the back of the appellant, was not in order.
Regarding his contention that he should have been allowed
to engage a lawyer, the Supreme Court held that since no oral
evidence was taken, there was no question of cross-examining the
witnesses and there was no material to show that he was handicapped
in his defence without engaging a lawyer. The Inquiry Officer’s refusal
to let him engage a lawyer did not amount to denial of reasonable
opportunity.
(158)
Judicial Service — disciplinary control
(i) Governor acts on aid and advice of Council of
Ministers in respect of appointment and removal of
members of subordinate Judicial Service.
(ii) High Court asking Government to enquire into
charges of misconduct against member of
Subordinate Judicial Service through Director of
Vigilance is in total disregard of Art. 235 of
Constitution.
Samsher Singh vs. State of Punjab,
AIR 1974 SC 2192
The appellants were Probationery Judicial Officers, whose
services were terminated by an order of the Governor. One of the