VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 420
813
Respondent, Manager, State Bank of Patiala was charged
with temporary misappropriation and he was removed from service.
The order was challenged on the ground of non-furnishing of copies
of statements of witnesses and documents. A list of documents /
witnesses was furnished before the commencement of enquiry and
copies of documents and statements recorded during preliminary
enquiry were not supplied. Half an hour before commencement of
enquiry proceedings, respondent perused documents and statements
of witnesses.
The Supreme Court held that though the copies of the
statement of two witnesses were not furnished, the respondent was
permitted to peruse them and take notes therefrom more than three
days prior to their examination. One of the two witnesses was not
examined. The respondent did not raise any objection during the
enquiry that the non-furnishing of copies of the statements is disabling
him or has disabled him from effectively cross-examining the
witnesses or to defend himself. The trial court has not found that
any prejudice has resulted from the said violation. The appellate
court has no doubt said that it has prejudiced the respondent’s case
but except merely mentioning the same, it has not specified in what
manner and in what sense was the respondent prejudiced in his
defence. The High Court of course has not referred to the aspect of
prejudice at all.
For the above reasons, the Supreme Court held that no
prejudice has resulted to the respondent on account of not furnishing
him the copies of the statements of witnesses and it cannot be said
that the respondent did not have a fair hearing or that the disciplinary
enquiry against him was not a fair enquiry.
The Supreme Court has issued the following guidelines in
this regard :
(1) An order passed imposing a punishment on an
employee consequent upon a disciplinary /
departmental enquiry in violation of the rules /