VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

656 DECISION - 321
paramount importance than trivial procedural irregularities. In this
view, the High Court held that no exception can be taken to the
examination of the two witnesses by the Inquiry Officer.
Regarding the alleged irregularity in the Inquiry Officer crossexamining
the respondent without merely attempting to get an
explanation with reference to the circumstances appearing in the
evidence against him, the High Court noted that the employee did
not examine himself and held that it cannot be considered to be a
violation of rule 9 (15) and even on the assumption that there was
some departure, the employee cannot be stated to have been in any
manner prejudiced by the course adopted by the Inquiry Officer.
Jurisdictional errors vitiating the conduct and the result of the
departmental inquires alone would justify the civil court proceeding to grant
the reliefs asked for but not otherwise and a suit is not to be equated to an
appeal from the order passed in the departmental proceedings or the
punishment inflicted even if they are erroneous. The High Court held
there is no such error and set aside the decree of the courts below.
(321)
(A) Evidence — of previous statements
Previously recorded ex-parte statements of
witnesses can be used in the inquiry only if the
witnesses affirm the truth of having made them and
an opportunity is given to the delinquent official to
cross-examine the witnesses.
(B) Evidence — standard of proof
Rule of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt
as applicable to criminal trial, not applicable to
departmental inquiry.
(C) Court jurisdiction
(D) Evidence — some evidence, enough
Not permissible for court to re-examine or reassess
adequacy and sufficiency of evidence where there
is some evidence. Not the function of High Court to