VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 132
(132)
375
Plea of guilty
Delinquent official admitting facts and bringing no
evidence or cross-examining witnesses in a
departmental inquiry amounts to a plea of guilty.
Chennabasappa Basappa Happali vs. State of Mysore,
1971(2) SLR SC 9
The appellant was a Police Constable in the Dharwar District.
Departmental Inquiry was conducted on charges that he remained absent
from duty without leave or permission, that he sent letters to superior
officers intimating that he would go on fast for the upliftment of the country
and that he did go on a fast. He was dismissed from service.
The appellant filed an appeal against the judgment of the
High Court by which the appeal of the State Government was allowed
and the order of dismissal of the appellant was confirmed. During
the inquiry, in reply to questions put to him, he accepted the charges.
The appellant contended before the Supreme Court that he admitted
the facts but not his guilt.
The Supreme Court observed that they found no distinction
between admission of the facts and admission of guilt. When he
admitted the facts, he was guilty. The facts speak for themselves. It
was a clear case of indiscipline and nothing less. If a police officer
remains absent without leave and also resorts to fast as a
demonstration against the action of the superior officer, the indiscipline
is fully established. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court
was right when it laid down that the plea amounted to a plea of guilty
on the facts on which the appellant was charged and expressed full
agreement with the observation of the High Court. The Supreme
Court also observed that this is a clear case of a person who admitted
the facts and did not wish to cross-examine any witness or lead
evidence on his own behalf. Accordingly the Supreme Court
dismissed the appeal.