VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 321
657
review evidence and to arrive at an independent
finding on that evidence.
Surjeet Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
1989 (4) SLR MP 385
The petitioner, Branch Manager, New India Assurance
Company, was proceeded against in a departmental inquiry. During
the inquiry, Shri P.R. Joshi, who conducted the preliminary enquiry
was examined as a witness and the preliminary enquiry report was
taken on record and accepted as his oral statement in the enquiry.
Similarly, H.C. Gupta was examined as a witness and the Vigilance
Officer’s report was taken on record and accepted as his oral
statement in the enquiry. Copies of the two reports were furnished to
the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer held the charges as proved and
the General Manager, competent authority, accepting the findings of
the Inquiry Officer awarded the penalty of dismissal by order dated
13.03.85. The departmental appeal was dismissed.
On the contention of non-examination of Agent C.S. Bindra
as a witness at the inquiry, the High Court observed that the
Management sought to examine him, but he did not turn up and the
Inquiry Officer took into account his previously recorded statement
recorded by H.C. Gupta during the course of the investigation. The
Inquiry Officer treated the investigation report as oral deposition of
Gupta and as the previously recorded statement of Bindra formed a
part of that report, the Inquiry Officer took into account the statement
of Bindra while recording his finding. The High Court held that it is
well-settled that all witnesses on whose testimony the Management
relies in support of the charges against the delinquent official should
normally be examined in his presence in the regular inquiry itself
unless there are compelling reasons to bring on record the previously
recorded ex parte statements of the witnesses and in the event such
previously recorded ex parte statements are taken into account for
some reason, the delinquent official must be supplied with a copy of