VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION -174
429
true that after those preliminary checks no action was taken against
him but by this very fact he might have been emboldened to commit
graver lapses and when things reached such a stage it was felt
necessary to have a regular departmental proceeding against him.
The preliminary checks into some of the allegations would not act as
a bar to this departmental inquiry.
As regards the nine defence witnesses referred to by him,
they were expected to depose about the opinion they had formed
about his work, efficiency and integrity. They were not expected to
give any evidence on any of the imputations on which the charges
were based. As such, their evidence was not relevant to the charges
and no prejudice has been caused to him by the refusal to examine
them during the inquiry.
(174)
Evidence — of previous statements
Previous statements cannot be taken as substantive
evidence unless affirmed by the witness in chief
examination.
W.B.Correya vs. Deputy Managing Director (Tech), Indian
Airlines, New Delhi,
1977(2) SLR MAD 186
9 witnesses were called to give evidence before the inquiry
officer but they were not examined in chief but straight away offered
for cross-examination and the charged employee was asked to crossexamine
the witnesses on the basis that the statements given by
them behind his back at the stage of investigation constituted
substantive evidence against him. The witnesses were allowed to
have the ex parte statements in their hands and they gave their replies
to the questions put in cross-examination after perusing them. It
was contended by the charged officer that the statements obtained
from witnesses at the stage of the preliminary enquiry cannot
constitute substantive evidence at the inquiry unless those statements