VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 178
435
stated that they paid the fare and were travelling in the bus had been
examined during the inquiry and hence the evidence was not sufficient
for holding him guilty of the charge, that there is a departmental
instruction that checking Inspectors should record the statements of
passengers and the co-conductor had supported the respondent.
The Supreme Court observed that the courts below
misdirected themselves in insisting that passengers who had come
in and gone out should be chased and brought before the tribunal
before a valid finding could be recorded. They also pointed out “in a
domestic inquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under
the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are
logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no
allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and
credibility. It is true departmental authorities and administrative
tribunals must be careful in evaluating such materials and should
not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the
Indian Evidence Act.”
The Supreme Court went on to observe that the Inspector
incharge of the flying squad had deposed before the tribunal that the
passengers who informed him that they had paid the fare, refused to
give written statements. The Supreme Court felt that this was some
evidence relevant to the charge and when this was the case, it was
not for the courts to go into the question whether the evidence was
adequate. The Supreme Court took the view that the sufficiency of
evidence in support of a finding by a domestic Tribunal is beyond the
scrutiny of the courts but the absence of any evidence in support of
a finding is available for the court to look into for it amounts to an
error of law apparent on the record. Viewed from this angle, it can
be said that the evidence of the Inspector of the flying squad provided
some evidence which was relevant to the charge against the
respondent.
The instructions that the flying squad should record the
statements of passengers were instructions of prudence, not rules