VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 161
409
memorandum. The Inquiry Officer treated him as hostile and
proceeded to put questions in order to resolve the apparent conflict
between the statement at the Inquiry and what the memorandum
purported to show. Bana admitted that he had signed the
memorandum, that the words “I was present at the time of the incident”
therein were in his own hand and that he presented the memorandum,
along with others. In respect of another management witness, Mohan
Sahani also, the Inquiry Officer adopted the same procedure of
treating him as hostile and eliciting answers to questions put by him
to the same effect. The Labour Court held that the Inquiry Officer
had no business to treat the company’s witnesses as hostile witnesses
on his own and to ask questions for proving the misconduct.
The Supreme Court observed that the contents in the
memorandum submitted by the employees to the Management
apparently conflicted with what was deposed by the two witnesses,
and that it was reasonable and necessary to look for some explanation
for the contradictory statements. The Supreme Court held that if the
Inquiry Officer put certain questions to those two witnesses by way
of clarification, it could not be said that he had done something that
was not fair or proper. The Supreme Court pointed out that after the
Inquiry Officer had questioned the witnesses, they were subjected to
cross-examination on behalf of the delinquent. The Supreme Court
held that the inquiry was not vitiated.
(161)
Supreme Court — declaration of law, extending benefit
to others
Benefit of declaration of law by Supreme Court on
grievance of a citizen, be given to others similarly
placed.
Amrit Lal Berry vs. Collector of Central Excise, Central Revenue,
AIR 1975 SC 538
The petitioners applied to the Supreme Court under Art. 32
of the Constitution complaining of violation of Art. 16 thereof on the