VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

642 DECISION - 314
the very outset even before examination of witness for the
disciplinary authority, vitiates the Inquiry.
V. Gurusekharan vs. Union of India,
1989(7) SLR CAT MAD 725
The applicant, a Goods Train Guard at Dindigal, Southern
Railway, was dealt with on a charge of absenting himself
unauthorisedly from duty from 21-11-85 to 30-11-86 and was removed
from service with effect from 31-5-1988, after conducting an inquiry,
by order dated 20-5-88 of the Divisional Operating Superintendent,
Madurai. On appeal, the penalty was modified to one of reduction to
a lower rank, viz. Trains Clerk at the lowest grade, by the Addl. Divl.
Railway Manager.
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras observed that
it is clear that the enquiry started with a detailed questioning of the
applicant by the Inquiry Officer. The only witness on the side of the
respondents was examined after such detailed questioning. There
has been violation of the procedure prescribed under the disciplinary
rules. The Tribunal drew attention to the following observation of the
Supreme Court in Associated Cement Cos. vs. Their Workmen,
1963(2) LLJ 396:
“It is further necessary to emphasise that in domestic
enquiries the employer should take steps first to lead
evidence against the workman charged, give an
opportunity to the workman to cross-examine the
said evidence and then should the workman be
asked whether he wants to give any explanation
about the evidence led against him. It is not fair in
domestic enquiries against industrial employees, the
employee should be at the very commencement of
the enquiry, closely cross-examined even before any
evidence is led against him.”