laid down by the Apex Court in Jagir Singhs' Case (supra), if the meaning of the word of “action” as defined in Section 2(a) is examined, it can be seen that, to qualify to be an "action" as defined in Section 2(a) of the Act, the action complained of must be that of a public servant and should be one in discharge of or in the purported discharge of his duties as a public servant. Otherwise, if the interpretation canvassed on behalf of the petitioner is accepted, the resultant position would be that everything done by a public servant, including those which are totally unrelated to his duties as such, would also come within the purview of Section 2(a). Such an interpretation, is against the object of the statute itself and is untenable. Contrary to this, the expression "allegation" in relation to a public servant includes abuse of his position as public servant to obtain any gain or favour, any affirmation that he was actuated by personal interest, improper or corrupt motives and cases where he is guilty of corruption, favouritism, nepotism or lack of integrity in his capacity as public servant. The expression “grievance” means the claim by a person that he sustained injustice or undue hardship as a consequence of maladministration. From these expressions also it is clear that while 'action' means and include what is done by a person in discharge of his duties as a public servant, "allegation" refers to omissions and commissions of a
