VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

428 DECISION -173
responsible officers. The Chief Justice had stated in his report that
on consideration of all the facts he did not have the slightest doubt
that in this case leniency would be misplaced and in the interest of
purity of service such practices when proved, as they have been
proved, must be dealt with firmly. The Supreme Court observed that
the Chief Justice took into consideration extraneous matter and he
was not authorised to do so under the Rules of the High Court Act.
The report of the Chief Justice was based to a large extent on secret
information which the respondent had no opportunity of meeting.
(173)
(A) Preliminary enquiry
Preliminary enquiry is no bar to regular departmental
inquiry on same allegations at a later stage.
(B) Witnesses — defence witnesses
Disallowing examination of witnesses in defence
about work, efficiency and integrity does not cause
prejudice.
R.C. Sharma vs. Union of India,
AIR 1976 SC 2037
The appellant was an Income Tax Officer and after a
preliminary investigation into certain allegations by a departmental
officer, he was proceeded against on charges of violating the Conduct
Rules, possessing disproportionate assets and handling a number
of assessments in a corrupt, negligent and inefficient manner. He
contended before the Supreme Court that some of the allegations
covered by the charges in the departmental inquiry had already been
investigated into earlier and hence no fresh inquiry on those
allegations was permissible. It was also urged by him that nine
witnesses cited by him in his defence were not allowed to be examined
which prejudiced his defence.
The Supreme Court found that the previous enquiries referred
to by the appellant were only preliminary checks into the allegations
and no regular charges have been framed and enquired into. It was