VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION -17
213
bribe to Sri Tawakley, an Assistant in the Commerce Ministry. This
bribe was to be paid after the order in his favour had been issued and
the respondent was to stand surety for him. On Sri Tawakley’s
complaint, a trap was laid during which the respondent assured Sri
Tawakley that the amount would be paid by Sri Bhan. Following a
departmental inquiry, the respondent was dismissed from service. The
respondent moved the High Court and his petition was allowed on the
grounds that he was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses and
was not allowed to examine himself and the witnesses and that he
and his witnesses were cross-examined by the Enquiry Officer. The
High Court held that these amounted to denial of reasonable opportunity
and constituted violation of Art. 311 of Constitution.
The Supreme Court observed that the respondent had not
filed any complaint during the hearing or immediately thereafter that
he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against
him. Thus, strictly speaking, it was a question of his word against
the Inquiry Officer’s and the Supreme Court preferred to believe the
Inquiry Officer, for a reading of the depositions showed that he had
put searching questions and elicited all relevant facts. It was true
that the versions of the respondent and his witnesses were not
recorded by way of examination-in-chief but he was asked to reply to
the Inquiry Officer’s questions, and questions to the defence witnesses
were put by the Inquiry Officer and not by the respondent. The
Supreme Court pointed out that while this was not in accordance
with the procedure prescribed in the Evidence Act, the Evidence Act
has no application to departmental inquiries conducted by tribunals.
They observed that “the law requires that such tribunals should
observe rules of natural justice in the conduct of the inquiry, and if
they do so, their decision is not liable to be impeached on the ground
that the procedure followed was not in accordance with that which
obtains in a Court of Law.
The Supreme Court observed that stating it broadly and
without intending it to be exhaustive, rules of natural justice require
that party should have the opportunity of adducing all relevant