VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 202
471
must be deemed to have retired from Government service and that
he was no longer in Government service. It was contended on his
behalf before the Andhra Pradesh High Court that he must as such
be deemed to have retired from service on 31-1-73 as the order of
dismissal was not served on him by then and the order of dismissal
could not be enforced against him.
The High Court observed that the order of dismissal was
passed on 20-12-72 and it was despatched through post to be served
on the petitioner through proper channel. In State of Punjab vs.
Amar Singh (AIR 1966 SC 1313), it was held that the mere passing
of an order of dismissal was not effective unless it was published
and communicated to the officer concerned. What is ‘communication’
is explained in a later decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab
vs. Khemi Ram (AIR 1970 SC 214), where it was held that an order
of suspension was effective from the date of communication by
sending a telegram to his home address and it was immaterial when
he actually received the order. The High Court held that the petitioner
must have deliberately evaded the service of the order of dismissal
and therefore he cannot contend that it was not personally served on
him, and that the petitioner must be deemed to have had knowledge
of the order of dismissal prior to the submission of his letter of
voluntary retirement on 31-1-73, and therefore the order of dismissal
was valid and became effective.
The High Court held that by reason of proviso (a) to Art.
311(2) of Constitution and rule 9(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil
Services (CCA) Rules, 1963 it is not necessary to give an opportunity
or hold an enquiry and that in the instant case, the order of dismissal
is based on the petitioner’s conduct which led to his conviction on a
criminal charge of breach of trust. The High Court rejected the
contention that the order of dismissal was merely based on the
conviction and not on the conduct leading to the conviction on a
criminal charge and held that the order shows that the disciplinary
authority took into consideration the fact that the charge of criminal
breach of trust was