VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

282 DECISION - 63
But the departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise
properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there be some legal
evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or
reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to
be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under
Art. 226 of Constitution.
The Enquiry Officer in stating that the judgment of the
Magistrate in a criminal trial against the public servant could not always
be regarded as binding in a departmental enquiry against that public
servant does not commit any error.
The charge and the statement of facts accompanying the
charge-sheet form part of a single document on the basis of which
proceedings are started against the delinquent and it would be
hypercritical to proceed on the view that though the delinquent was
expressly told in the statement of facts which formed part of the
charge-sheet about the ground of reprehensible conduct charged
against the delinquent, that ground of reprehensible conduct was
not included in the charge and on that account the enquiry was vitiated.
(63)
Evidence — of accomplice
In a departmental inquiry, if the inquiring authority
chooses to rely on the testimony of an accomplice,
that will not vitiate the departmental inquiry.
B.V.N. Iyengar vs. State of Mysore,
1964(2) MYS L.J. 153
The petitioner, who was a Deputy Superintendent of Police
was charged with objectionable and unbecoming conduct. The
Government dismissed him after conducting an inquiry. It was
contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Inquiry Officer as well
as the punishing authority erred in relying on the evidence adduced
on behalf of the prosecution; that the case against the petitioner rested
entirely on the evidence of witnesses who were accomplices and