VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 54
267
Govind Shankar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
AIR 1963 MP 115
The High Court held that the fact that a particular officer held
a preliminary enquiry before it was decided to hold a departmental
inquiry against the delinquent officer does not debar him from
conducting the departmental inquiry; nor can it be regarded as in any
way indicative of bias against the delinquent officer. There can also
be no valid reason to suppose that as some of the witnesses
appearing in the departmental inquiry were his subordinates, he was
not in a position to give a fair hearing to the delinquent officer.
The High Court further held that a civil servant against whom
a departmental inquiry is started is not entitled to copies of reports of
the officer who made the preliminary enquiry and of the letters
addressed by him to the superior officers in connection with the
question whether a departmental inquiry should not be started. If the
civil servant is not entitled to copies of his correspondence then the
question of tendering in evidence the officer holding the preliminary
enquiry to prove that correspondence cannot arise.
(54)
(A) Evidence — recording of
(B) Evidence — previous statements, as examinationin-chief
Previous statement can be marked on its admission
by the witness during departmental inquiry, provided
the person charged is given a copy thereof and an
opportunity to cross-examine him.
State of Mysore vs. Shivabasappa Shivappa Makapur,
AIR 1963 SC 375
The respondent entered service in the Police department as
a constable in the district of Dharwar in 1940 and was at the material
time a Sub-Inspector of Police. On a complaint received against
him, preliminary investigation was made and disciplinary proceedings
were conducted. During the departmental inquiry, in accordance with
the provision of clause (8) of section 545 of the Bombay Police