VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

470 DECISION - 202
accepted the money. There can be no quarrel with that proposition
but where the recovery of the money coupled with other circumstances
leads to the conclusion that the accused received gratification from
some person the court would certainly be entitled to draw the
presumption under sec. 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1947 (corresponding to sec. 20 of the P.C. Act, 1988).
(202)
(A) Departmental action and conviction
Order of dismissal dispensing with inquiry passed
on the basis of conduct which led to conviction on a
criminal charge is proper.
(B) Penalty — dismissal, date of coming into force
Order of dismissal deemed to have been
communicated on the date of despatch by post for
service through proper channel.
Karumullah Khan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh,
1981(3) SLR AP 707
The petitioner joined the State Excise Department in the
erstwhile State of Hyderabad on 22-5-43. It came to the notice of the
Government through a petition on 10-2-72 that the petitioner was
convicted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for breach of trust
punishable under section 406 I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs. 250 by judgment dated 2-1-70 and therefore the Board of Revenue
passed the impugned order of dismissal from service under exception
in clause (a) of proviso to Art. 311(2) of Constitution, on 20-12-72.
The order of dismissal was despatched on 21-12-72 but it could not
be served, as the petitioner was not available. The petitioner filed an
application to the department on 31-1-73 that he had completed 25
years of service and that he had reached the age of superannuation
of 55 years and that he was exercising his option to retire under the
provisions of the Hyderabad Civil Service Regulations and that he