VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 219
489
against his dismissal on the ground that the order of dismissal was
illegal as no proper inquiry was held against him and no reasonable
opportunity was given to him to defend himself. The trial court
dismissed the suit. The appeal Court reversed the trial court’s findings
and decreed the suit holding that the charge-sheet framed against
him was vague, that the official was prejudiced in his defence and
was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself during the
inquiry. The State preferred a second appeal and the High Court
confirmed the decree passed by the appeal court. The State went in
appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the High Court
and held that the Head Constable had no reasonable opportunity of
defending himself against the charges levelled against him and he
was prejudiced in the matter of his defence and that (i) in the chargesheet
served on the public servant, no particulars with regard to the
date and time of his having entered the Government Forest and
hunting a bull there and thereby having injured the feelings of
community, were mentioned and even the location of the incident in
the vast forest was not indicated with sufficient particularity and (ii)
copies of statements of witnesses recorded during the preliminary
enquiry were not furnished to the charged official at the time of the
disciplinary inquiry. The Supreme Court held that the respondent
was denied reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the
disciplinary inquiry.
(219)
(A) P.C. Act, 1988 — Secs. 7, 13(1)(d)
(B) Trap — held proved, where complainant died before
trial