VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

654 DECISION - 320
Throughout the inquiry, a Deputy Superintendent of Police
of CBI was present and he was even permitted to re-examine one of
the important witnesses, on a point which had a strong bearing on
the merits of the case. The High Court held that when the inquiry
was domestic one, outsider should not have been allowed to be
present particularly a senior officer of CBI at whose instance an
investigation was conducted in the case, and the participation of an
outsider is violative of the principles of natural justice and clearly
vitiated the proceedings of the inquiry.
(320)
(A) Evidence — additional
(B) Witnesses — turning hostile
Examination of a new witness for the purpose of
testing the credibility of testimony of another witness
regarding circumstances under which he came to
sign the statement, causes no prejudice to
delinquent official and is not illegal.
(C) Inquiry Officer — powers and functions
(D) Witnesses — examination of
(i) Inquiry Officer competent to examine and cross
examine a witness to find out the truth, the question
of paramount importance for consideration being
whether prejudice, if any, was caused.
(ii) Inquiry Officer under obligation to put questions
to delinquent official with reference to circumstances
appearing in the evidence against him in order to
afford him an opportunity to explain the
circumstances.
(E) Court Jurisdiction
Civil court cannot act as a court of appeal from order
passed in departmental proceedings or the
punishment, the scope being limited to jurisdictional
errors affecting the conduct of the inquiry.