VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

436 DECISION -179
that bind or vitiate in violation. In this case, the Inspector had tried to
get the statements but they declined and their psychology in such
circumstances was understandable.
The Supreme Court also held that the re-valuation of the
evidence on the strength of co-conductor’s testimony is a matter not
for the court but for the administrative tribunal. The Supreme Court
finally held that the Courts below were not right in overturning the
finding of the domestic Tribunal.
(179)
(A) Documents — admission, without examining maker
(B) Principles of natural justice — not to stretch too far
Documents can be admitted as evidence in
departmental inquiry without examining maker of
the document. To hold it otherwise would be
stretching principles of natural justice to a breaking
point.
Zonal Manager, L.I.C. of India vs. Mohan Lal Saraf,
1978 (2) SLR J&K 868
The respondent was serving as a despatch and records
Clerk. He was dismissed from service by the appellants by order
dated 14-4-72 on charges of misappropriation and dereliction of duty,
after holding an inquiry. One of the contentions of the respondent
which was also upheld by the single judge of the High Court was that
a document was admitted without examining the maker.
A Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court
expressed the view “that the rule that unless the maker of a document
is available for cross-examination, the document should not be admitted
into evidence, is a rule from the Evidence Act and has no application
to domestic inquiries” and that “it would be stretching the principles of
natural justice to a breaking limit if it were to be held that evidence,
though credible, is inadmissible because the maker of the document
sought to be admitted in evidence has not appeared at the inquiry”.