VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

456 DECISION - 194
under secs. 409/120-B IPC because the alleged act of criminal
misappropriation complained of was not committed by them while
they were acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official
duty, the commission of the offence having no direct connection or
inseparable link with their duties as public servants. At the most, the
official status of the accused furnished them with an opportunity or
occasion to commit the alleged criminal act.
There can be no dispute that the seizure of the goods by the
accused and their being thus entrusted with the goods or dominion
over them, was an act committed by them while acting in the discharge
of their official duty. But the subsequent act of dishonest
misappropriation or conversion complained of could not bear such
an integral relation to the duty of the accused persons that they would
genuinely claim that they committed it in the course of the performance
of their official duty. There is nothing in the nature or quality of the
act complained of which attaches to or partakes of the official
character of the accused who allegedly did it. Nor could the alleged
act of misappropriation or conversion, be reasonably said to be
imbued with the colour of the office held by the accused persons.
(194)
Retirement and prosecution
Judicial proceedings against retired Government
servant in respect of a cause of action or event which
took place more than four years before such
institution, is proper. Limitation of four years
operates only in regard to power exercised under
Art. 351A of Civil Service Regulations and is no bar
against criminal prosecution.
M. Venkata Krishnarao vs. Divisional Panchayat Officer,
1980(3) SLR AP 756
The petitioner worked as Executive Officer of Gram
Panchayat. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against him on
allegations involving forgery and misappropriation, which took place