VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 398
781
clearly in contravention of the control jurisdiction of the High Court
under Art. 235 of the Constitution. The entire proceedings beginning
with the departmental inquiry and concluding with the order of
dismissal was therefore, by an authority which Art. 235 did not
countenance to exercise jurisdiction. The order of dismissal was
therefore clearly passed in derogation of the concept of judicial
independence and control enshrined in Art. 235 of Constitution. Such
an inquiry and consequential order passed pursuant thereto can have
no efficacy in law.
(398)
(A) P.C. Act, 1988 — Sec. 13(1)(e)
(B) Disproportionate assets — margin to be allowed
It is inappropriate, indeed undesirable, to extend
benefit beyond 10% of total income, in determining
disproportion of assets.
(C) Misconduct — of disproportionate assets
Possession of assets disproportionate to known
sources of income constitutes misconduct.
(D) Court jurisdiction
(E) Disciplinary authority — sole judge
(F) Evidence — some evidence, enough
(i) Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that
the individual receives fair treatment and not to
ensure that the conclusion which the authority
reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court.
(ii) Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence
cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the
court / tribunal, where conclusions are based on
some evidence.
(iii) The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of