VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

758 DECISION - 379
Witnesses shall be cross-examined immediately
after examination and not all at one time.
Bank of India vs. Apurba Kumar Saha,
1994(3) SLJ SC 32
The respondent, clerk-cum-cashier in the Bank of India, did
not cross-examine the witnesses of the Bank as and when each of
them was examined-in-chief. He wanted the Inquiry Officer to
complete the examination-in-chief of all the Bank’s witnesses and
make them available for cross-examination at once. Since the Inquiry
Officer wanted the respondent or his representative to cross-examine
the witnesses of the Bank as and when each of them was examinedin-chief,
both of them boycotted the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer
prepared his report of enquiry, on the basis of evidence recorded by
him and found the respondent guilty of the charges leveled against
him. The disciplinary authority, agreeing with the inquiry officer,
ordered discharge of the respondent from the bank service.
Supreme Court held that there was no violation of principles
of natural justice in conducting the disciplinary proceedings against
the respondent. An employee who had refused to avail of the
opportunities provided to him cannot be permitted to complain later
that he had been denied a reasonable opportunity of defending himself.
(380)
(A) Inquiry report — furnishing copy
Non-furnishing of copy of Inquiry report to charged
officer does not vitiate the order of penalty where it
is passed prior to 20-11-90 (date of decision in
Ramzan Khan case).
(B) Penalty — quantum of
Where penalty imposed is harsh, High Court or
administrative Tribunal should refer matter to the
Disciplinary or Appellate Authority for consideration,
but not interfere itself.