VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 171
425
suit in his favour. The State Government appealed against the order
to the High Court which was allowed.
Before the Supreme Court, it was contended by the appellant
that the restrictions placed on his movements by the Superintendent
of Police and his refusal to permit him to remain in Belgaum hampered
him in his defence and amounted to denial of reasonable opportunity
to him. It was also argued that there was no legal evidence to support
the order of the High Court.
The Supreme Court observed that the question whether there
was denial of reasonable opportunity for his defence was one of fact
and no hard and fast rule can be laid down in that behalf. It was
found that the refusal to let him stay in Belgaum and the restrictions
imposed on him not to leave his headquarters without the permission
of the Superintendent of Police did not prevent him from appearing
before the Inquiry Officer on any date. He was given the assistance
of another Police Officer for his defence and there was nothing to
indicate that he was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses from
the Government side or was handicapped in producing his defence
witnesses. As such, there was no denial of opportunity.
The Supreme Court also held that “neither the High Court
nor this Court can re-examine and re-assess the evidence in Writ
proceedings. Whether or not there is sufficient evidence against a
delinquent to justify his dismissal from service is a matter on which
this Court cannot embark”. “Departmental proceedings do not stand
on the same footing as criminal prosecution in which high degree of
proof is required”.
(171)
(A) Defence Assistant / Legal Practitioner
Government servant, not entitled to the services of
a lawyer and cannot insist upon the services of a
particular officer selected by him for assisting him.