VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 400
785
The Supreme Court was of the opinion that the said principle
can make no difference in the facts of the case. The respondent has
been convicted for corruption and there can be nothing short of
dismissal in such cases. No other lesser punishment can be
contemplated in such cases.In that view of the matter, Supreme Court
allowed the appeal and restored the order of dismissal.
(400)
Plea of guilty
Charge of misappropriation held proved on
admission in statement of defence in reply to the
charge. No defence that money was spent for
arrangements for visit of Minister or that it was spent
under directions of Block Development Officer.
Secretary to the Panchayat Raj vs. Mohd. Ikramuddin,
1995(8) SLR SC 816
The respondent, Manager-cum-Chief Accountant in the
Panchayat Samiti, Venkatapuram was dismissed from service on
various charges including misappropriating the Panchayat Samiti’s
fund. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal set aside the
dismissal and directed the reinstatement of the respondent.
The Supreme Court observed that the reply of the respondent
to the charge is an admission in clear terms that he advanced a sum
of Rs. 3965.60 for the arrangement in respect of the visit of a Minister.
It is surprising how can an official entrusted with the money for the
disbursement of scholarships to tribal students expend the same in
welcoming a visiting Minister. The Supreme Court held that the charge
against the respondent is proved on his own admission. No further
enquiry of any type is necessary under law. Even if it is assumed
that the money was spent by the respondent under the directions of
the Block Development Officer that cannot be a defence to the charge
served on the respondent. This is one instance where the government