VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

386 DECISION - 141
there on a surprise visit on receipt of a complaint, recovered some
amount from one Taimudin along with a list of persons from whom
he had collected the amount. Taimudin told the A.D.M. that he had
collected the amount to pay for the hire carriage of the Sub-Deputy
Collector and following this an inquiry was held against him.
During the inquiry, though it was stated that some amount
had been collected for this purpose, yet none of the witnesses stated
that the respondent himself had authorised them to collect this
amount. On the other hand, the Inquiring Officer recorded evidence
on allegations extraneous to the charge and which had not been
included in the statement of imputations, namely, that certain amounts
were being collected as fee to be paid to the respondent and that he
had distributed amounts less than what each person was to receive.
The Supreme Court ruled that there was no conclusive
evidence that the respondent himself had authorised collections on
his behalf while on the other hand, recording evidence on extraneous
matters prejudiced the Inquiring Officer as a result of which his finding
became vitiated.
(141)
Evidence — defence evidence
Failure of Inquiry Officer to examine witnesses
produced by Government servant merely on the
ground that they were not present when the alleged
mis-conduct was committed amounts to denial of
reasonable opportunity and attracts Art. 311(2) of
Constitution.
Mohd. Yusuf Ali vs. State of Andhra Pradesh,
1973(1) SLR AP 650
The appellant was posted as Special Levy Inspector at a
check-post which was set up for regulating the movement of rice. It
was alleged that on 31-1-66 at 2 A.M. two lorries loaded with rice