VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

566 DECISION - 267
Giasuddin Ahmed vs. Union of India,
1987(1) SLR CAT GUWAHATI 524
The applicant, a Telephone Operator posted at Guwahati
was charge-sheeted for passing of free telephone calls. After holding
a departmental inquiry, he was removed from service on 7-4-83 and
his appeal to the Department was rejected. The Chairman, P & T
Board reduced the penalty to one of compulsory retirement, on a
petition filed by the applicant.
The applicant contended before the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Guwahati that the tape record evidence was not admissible.
The Tribunal observed that tape records of speeches were
‘documents’ as defined in section 3 of the Evidence Act and they
stand on no different footing than photographs and are admissible in
evidence. The Tribunal also observed that it was nowhere the plea of
the applicant that the conversation played in the tape record was denied
by him or that the Inquiry Officer had relied upon anything different
from what was recorded in the tape. The tape record casette in this
particular case is also no different from any other tape recorded speech
or conversation made for any specific purpose. The casette in question
was like a part of a document regularly maintained in the ordinary
course of business. The Tribunal referred to the case reported in
Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari vs. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra, AIR
1975 SC 1788 that the tape records of speeches are ‘documents’ as
defined in section 3 of the Evidence Act. Regarding the contention of
the applicant that whatever was recorded in the tape should have been
brought into the enquiry report verbatim by the Inquiry Officer, the
Tribunal observed that the tape record is a part of the record of the
disciplinary proceedings and it is not necessary that the entire
conversation was to be reproduced verbatim in the enquiry report.
(267)
Sealed cover procedure
Withholding of promotion of a Government servant