VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 403
789
the Division Bench of the High Court held that the conduct of the
Munsiff Magistrate betrays the guilty mind and his conduct as a judicial
officer smacks of some ulterior motive and court can take note of the
features that, the human nature being what it is, there was some bad
purpose in passing the order of confiscation of the 17 teak logs and
auctioning them. The High Court held that the Munsiff Magistrate
had not acted innocently in confiscating and selling the property by
auction, but had acted in a manner that reflects on his reputation or
integrity and indicates that his acts were unbecoming of a Judicial
Officer establishing misconduct in the discharge of his duty.
The High Court held that imposition of appropriate
punishment is within the discretion and judgment of the Disciplinary
Authority. It may be open to the appellate authority to interfere with it
but not to the High Court or the Administrative Tribunal. The Supreme
Court can exercise equitable jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the
Constitution of India, but the High Court has no such power or
jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.
The High Court allowed the appeal.
(403)
Preliminary enquiry
Preliminary enquiry is not compulsory though
desirable. It is administrative action. The purpose
is to find out whether there is sufficient justification
for embarking on a full-fledged departmental inquiry.
Disciplinary authority need not disclose the material
to the delinquent. There is no fixed procedure.
Disciplinary authority need not record its satisfaction.
The question of prejudging the issues does not arise
and the delinquent need not be given an opportunity,
and principles of natural justice do not apply.
Depot Manager, APSRTC, Medak vs. Mohd. Ismail,
1996 (4) ALT AP 502