VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 97
329
AIR 1968 SC 158
The respondent was a Sales Tax Officer and an inquiry was
instituted against him on certain charges. On 31-10-53, the
respondent submitted a list of three defence witnesses. On 2-2-54,
he asked for 20 days time to furnish his list of defence witnesses, a
day before regular hearing started. No date till then had been fixed
for examination of defence witnesses. The Inquiry Officer rejected
the request on 6-2-54 without fixing a date for the examination of the
defence witnesses. The charged officer after a week submitted a list
of four witnesses on 10-2-54 and stated that he requires some time
as he did not know the whereabouts of all of them. A few days later,
on 24-2-54, he again informed the Inquiry Officer that he wanted to
examine those witnesses and also wanted to examine himself. No
order was passed on these intimations and on 8-5-54, the Inquiry
Officer submitted his report holding the charges as proved.
The Supreme Court held that no action was taken between
6-2-54 and 8-4-54 to enable the officer to lead his defence, if any, in
support of his part of the case and the respondent was not given
opportunity to defend himself and before furnishing the report, the
Inquiry Officer should have fixed a date when his witnesses could be
examined.
(97)
Suspension — treatment of period
Where in a departmental inquiry, charges were not
proved beyond reasonable doubt but it was held that
suspension and departmental inquiry “were not
wholly unjustified” and Government servant was
reinstated in service and simultaneously retired, he
having attained superannuation age but not allowed
any pay beyond what had already been paid under
F.R. 54, it was held Government servant was