VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

650 DECISION - 318
been examined despite a request made by the petitioner to that effect
and the Inquiry Officer held that the prosecution case was already
over and a written affidavit of Raj Kumar had already been submitted,
certified by Notary on behalf of the complainant and that therefore it
does not require any further examination of Raj Kumar. On the other
hand, the petitioner was advised to examine Raj Kumar as his witness
or to submit a set of questions which may be transmitted to the
complainant for obtaining answers from him. The petitioner
contended that the complaint filed by Raj Kumar constitutes the
foundation stone of the inquiry initiated against the petitioner and
that he was rather dismayed to see that the complainant has not
been examined by the Corporation and the ball has been placed in
the court of the petitioner saying that it is for him to examine Raj
Kumar. The only witness examined was Shri Mukherjee, Manager
of the Corporation, whose testimony is based upon information
contained in the complaint filed by Raj Kumar. The said Raj Kumar
has later retracted his earlier statement and the affidavit by submitting
another affidavit stating that he had done so under pressure from
one of his relatives. The petitioner contended that the statement of
Shri Mukherjee that he visited the house of the petitioner to verify the
veracity of the statement of the complainant is palpably false and
untenable as he had never resided at the address given by Shri
Mukherjee.
The High Court observed that the petitioner has not denied
the execution of the receipt in which it is clearly stated that the
petitioner has received an amount of Rs. 2400 from Raj Kumar. More
over, it is also mentioned in the said receipt that one year warranty is
guaranteed from that date to the buyer. Further more, the receipt
also describes Tube No. 440738, Lot No. 28122 and Yoke No. 28122
of the T.V. Set. On the top of the receipt the telephone number of the
petitioner is given as 852231 Ext. 331 which is the telephone number
of his office and another Telephone No. 851857 is given. The entire
receipt is in the handwriting of the petitioner himself. During the