05.04.2013 Views

VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

DECISION - 87<br />

317<br />

Another grievance of the petitioner was that the Inquiring<br />

Officer played the part of prosecutor by collecting evidence against<br />

the petitioner on behalf of the Department, as the Inquiring Officer<br />

suo motu decided to hold the proceedings at Darjeeling for<br />

examination of documents and the petitioner was never informed as<br />

to what documents would be inspected at Darjeeling. The High Court<br />

observed that a copy of the Memo sent by the Inquiring Officer to Sri<br />

D.N. Das to Darjeeling requesting him to keep all relevant documents<br />

ready for inspection was endorsed to the petitioner who was given<br />

advance traveling allowance for his journey to and from Darjeeling.<br />

The petitioner was therefore given timely intimation as to the venue<br />

of the inquiry. The witnesses were examined at Darjeeling in his<br />

presence and no books or papers were inspected behind the back of<br />

the petitioner. The Inquiring Officer was therefore within his jurisdiction<br />

in deciding suo motu to hold the inquiry at Darjeeling. When the<br />

charge is related to stock books of a farm at Darjeeling, there cannot<br />

be any hard and fast rules as to where the inquiry is to be held. The<br />

only thing to be seen is whether the petitioner was in any way denied<br />

the opportunity of defending himself by reason of the selection of<br />

such a venue. Since the petitioner was not prejudiced in any way by<br />

reason of the inquiry being held at Darjeeling, there was no violation<br />

of the principles of natural justice.<br />

Another contention of the petitioner was that the Joint Director<br />

of Agriculture, who had no locus standi in the case, considered the<br />

report of the Inquiring Officer and suggested the punishment to be<br />

inflicted and that the Director of Agriculture, who was the disciplinary<br />

authority, did not apply his own mind but merely endorsed the opinion<br />

of the Joint Director. The High Court observed that if the punishing<br />

authority makes his decision in consultation with any officer, the<br />

decision remains the decision of the disciplinary authority as he adopts<br />

the opinion of the officer whom he consults.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!