VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 319
653
The High Court held that there is no infirmity or illegality in
the manner in which the inquiry had been conducted against the
petitioner, and dismissed the petition.
(319)
(A) Evidence — of previous statements
Pre-recorded statements can be treated as
evidence-in-chief provided the marker of the
statement is examined and opportunity given to the
delinquent official to cross examine such witness.
(B) Inquiry — association of Investigating Agency
Allowing a member of the Investigation Agency at
whose instance investigation was conducted to
examine a witness or be present in the departmental
inquiry, vitiates the inquiry.
B.C. Basak vs. Industrial Development Bank of India,
1989 (1) SLR CAL 271
The appellant, Deputy Manager of Industrial Development
Bank of India, Calcutta was imposed the penalty of stoppage of
promotion, and the present is an appeal against the decision of a
single judge rejecting his contentions.
The Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta found that
statements of witnesses recorded earlier during investigation were
treated as their examination-in-chief after those statements were read
over and admitted by them as correctly recorded, and thereafter they
were allowed to be cross-examined and held that no exception can
be taken to the procedure so adopted. But treating the statements
of two of the witnesses, who were not examined at inquiry was violative
and these two witnesses should have been left out of consideration.
The High Court did not consider the contention that the charge stood
proved without taking the statements of the two witnesses, as the
inquiry stood vitiated by another serious infirmity.