VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 411
799
respondents with regard to payment of stipend etc. can well be revived
and made good to the respondents. If such trifling matters are taken
into consideration, then every conviction will have to be suspended
pending appeal or revision involving the slightest disadvantage to a
convict. Supreme Court observed that the High Court made an
observation but did not consider at all the moral conduct of the
respondents in as much as one respondent who was the Police
Inspector has been convicted under Sec. 392, 218 and 466 IPC,
while the other respondents have been convicted under the P.C.Act.
In such a case the discretionary power to suspend the conviction
either under Sections 389(1) or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should
not have been exercised. The orders impugned thus cannot be
sustained.
(411)
Documents — defence documents, relevance
Charged Officer entitled to supply of only documents
which are relevant.
State of Tamil Nadu vs. K.V. Perumal,
1996(3) SLJ SC 43
The Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal seems to be
under the impression that the Inquiry Officer/disciplinary authority is
bound to supply each and every document that may be asked for by
the delinquent officer/employee. Their duty is only to supply relevant
documents and not each and every document asked for by the
delinquent officer/employee. The Tribunal has not gone into the
question nor has it expressed any opinion whether the documents
asked for were indeed relevant and whether their non-supply has
prejudiced the respondent’s case. The test to be applied in this behalf
has been set out in State Bank of Patiala vs. S.K. Sharma, 1996(3)
SCALE 202. It was the duty of the respondent to point out how each
and every document was relevant to the charges or to the inquiry
being held against him and whether and how their non-supply has