VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 226
499
to the disciplinary authority represented by the Presidenting Officer
and a superior officer, co-delinquent is also represented by an officer
in his choice to defend him, absence of anyone to assist such a
Government servant belonging to the lower echelons of service would
unless it is shown that he had not suffered any prejudice, vitiates the
inquiry.
(226)
Evidence — circumstantial
Conclusion of inquiry officer can be based on
circumstantial evidence.
Jiwan Mal Kochar vs. Union of India,
1983(2) SLR SC 456
The appellant was an officer of the Madhya Pradesh cadre
of the I.A.S. The President of India by his order dated 25-1-64
compulsorily retired him from service as a result of disciplinary
proceedings instituted against him under the All India Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, in which he was found guilty of
charge No.7 and part of charge No.9. The appellant contended that
the evidence relied upon against him was purely circumstantial and
it should be such as to exclude the possibility of his innocence, that
the finding of the Inquiry Officer was vitiated as based on mere
suspicion and no evidence and on inadmissible material and that the
guilt of the appellant has not been established such as to stand
scrutiny and reasonableness consistent with human conduct and
probabilities.
The Supreme Court held that the conclusion of the Inquiry
Officer regarding the appellant’s guilt in respect of the entire charge
No.7 and part of charge No.9 is based on circumstantial evidence
which has been accepted by the Inquiry Officer and found to be
acceptable even by the High Court in the light of three sets of
documents and other circumstances considered by them and no
interference is called for.