VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 429
827
(B) Common proceedings
(C) Evidence — of co-charged official
(D) Evidence Act — applicability of
(i) Taking into account statement of co-charged
official in common proceedings in adjudging
misconduct, not objectionable.
(ii) Evidence Act, not applicable in a departmental
inquiry.
Vijay Kumar Nigam (dead) through Lrs. vs. State of M.P.,
1997(1) SLR SC 17
The appellant, Sub-Inspector of Police was dismissed from
service on a charge of receiving illegal gratification from an organiser
of gambling, by order dated 31-7-71 and his dismissal was confirmed
by the Inspector General of Police, by order dated 21-1-74. The
Division Bench of the High Court upheld the order of dismissal.
The Supreme Court held that the preliminary report is only
to decide and assess whether it would be necessary to take any
disciplinary action and it does not form any foundation for passing
the order of dismissal, and it is not necessary to supply a copy of the
report to the charged officer. The High Court found as a fact that all
the statements of persons that formed basis for the report, recorded
during the preliminary enquiry, were supplied to the delinquent officer.
On the question of holding of a joint inquiry along with a
constable, the Supreme Court held that in a departmental inquiry,
the question whether or not any delinquent officer is co-accused with
others does not arise, but only in a prosecution under the IPC or the
Prevention of Corruption Act. The evidence recorded in the
departmental inquiry ‘stricto senso’ is not evidence as per the
provisions of the Evidence Act. Evidence Act is not applicable in a
departmental inquiry. The statement of the constable formed part of
the record and it could be taken into account in adjudging the
misconduct against the Sub-Inspector. The appeal is dismissed.