VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

610 DECISION - 291
Government servant. There may, however, be cases, covered by
clause (iii) which provides that a Government servant shall do nothing
which is unbecoming of a Government servant though such conduct
may not fall in the first two clauses of rule 3(1) of the Rules.
The High Court hold that there is sufficient material on record
on the basis of which the two charges can be sustained and that the
respondent is clearly guilty of want of integrity, devotion to duty and
his conduct was clearly one which is unbecoming of a Government
servant.
The High Court considered the contention of the respondent
that the Inquiry Officer had taken resort to a novel procedure of putting
questions to the delinquent as and when some material against him
appeared in the examination of witnesses. The spirit of rule 14(18)
of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules is that the Government
servant must have opportunity to explain the material which appears
against him in evidence. There is nothing on record to show that by
asking questions at different stages in the course of the inquiry, the
respondent has been in any way prejudiced. The High Court held
that there was no breach of the principles of natural justice.
The High Court held that rule 14(5)(c) of Central Civil Services
(CCA) Rules merely enables the disciplinary authority to appoint a
presenting Officer. But such appointment of a Presenting Officer is
not at all obligatory. There is therefore no question of there being
any breach of the provision.
The High Court also dealt with the argument advanced by
the respondent that the second statement of Idris cannot be used as
substantive evidence and observed that it is well established that
when a witness is examined in the course of domestic inquiry, it is
not necessary for him to repeat everything that he has said in his
earlier statements and it is enough if it is put to him that he had made
such statements and if he admits those statements, those statements
will have to be treated as statements made in examination-in-chief.