VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 320
655
Union of India (Integral Coach Factory) vs. Dilli,
1989 (1) SLR MAD 78
The respondent, an employee in the Integral Coach Factory,
Madras was found guilty of insubordination and misbehaviour towards
the Works Manager and was dismissed from service.
The Madras High Court rejected the contention of the
respondent against examination of Srinivasan as an additional witness
on behalf of the disciplinary authority. The Inquiry Officer examined
him regarding the statement of Syed Abdullah, one of the
departmental witnesses. He gave evidence that Syed Abdullah gave
him the statement of his own accord and not out of compulsion, as
contended by him in his examination at the inquiry. The High Court
held that Srinivasan was examined only for the purpose of testing
the credibility of the testimony of Syed Abdullah and not for the
purpose of filling up any lacuna in evidence, as per rule 9 (11) of
Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968. Also the Inquiry Officer relied
upon the evidence of Srinivasan only for the purpose of discrediting
the evidence of Syed Abdullah and not to establish the charge against
the employee.
It is contended by the respondent that the Inquiry Officer
ought not to have examined Narayanan and Murugesan, witnesses
of the employee, in chief and called upon the respondent to crossexamine
them and that the respondent should have been allowed to
examine them in chief. While admitting that though ordinarily
witnesses should be examined in chief by the respective sides, the
High Court pointed out that as per the Brochure on Railway Servants
(D&A) Rules, the power of examination, cross-examination etc. of
witnesses, is inherent in the Inquiry Officer and he can examine and
cross-examine the witnesses in the absence of presenting officer,
as the function of the Inquiry Officer is to ascertain the truth, and
ultimately the question of prejudice caused, if any, would be of