VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 50
263
(B) Inquiry — ex parte
Where delinquent servant declines to take part in
the proceedings and remains absent, it is open to
inquiry officer to proceed on the materials placed
before him.
(C) Public Service Commission
Art. 320(3)(c) of Constitution is not mandatory.
Absence of consultation or any irregularity in
consultation does not afford a cause of action.
U.R. Bhatt vs. Union of India,
AIR 1962 SC 1344
The appellant was appointed a Senior Inspector in the Central
Agricultural Marketing Department. He was charge-sheeted and
called upon to show cause why he should not be dismissed or
removed from service or otherwise punished. He submitted his
statement, but took objection to the procedure followed viz, use of
marginal notes on the appellant’s representation, by the Enquiry
Officer, and refused to take further part in the proceedings. The
Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry and reported that the
charges were proved. A notice to show cause against dismissal was
issued and the appellant furnished his explanation. Ultimately, the
appellant was discharged from service. The appellant questioned
this order by way of suit on the ground that the enquiry and fresh
charges framed against him were illegal and that he was not given
adequate opportunity to show cause or to put in his defence at the
enquiry, and that the Public Service Commission not having been
consulted the order of dismissal was invalid.
The Supreme Court held that the Enquiry Officer is not bound
by the strict rules of the law of evidence, and when the appellant
declined to take part in the proceedings and remained absent, it was
open to the Enquiry Officer to proceed on the materials which were
placed before him. When the Enquiry Officer had afforded to the
public servant an opportunity to remain present and to make his
defence, but because of the conduct of the appellant in declining to