1000 TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -222
Statements cannot be used in the inquiry if the witness is not produced.
851. It may be mentioned here that the statements recorded in preliminary inquiry do not constitute legal evidence. The sole purpose of giving copies to the charged officer is to facilitate the cross-examination of those witnesses. If the witness is not produced during the inquiry, the statements become useless and cannot be taken on record [Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police, AIR 1999 SC 677]. In Union of India v. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882, the Supreme Court emphasized that the evidence of the opponent should be taken in presence of the charged employee. The principle is fully applicable to the domestic inquiries also. In Central Bank of India v. P.C. Jain, AIR 1969 SC 983, the Supreme Court observed :
“'The principle that a fact sought to be proved must be supported by statements made in the presence of the person against whom the enquiry is held and that the statements made behind the back of the person charged are not to be treated as substantive evidence, is one of the basic principles which cannot be ignored on the mere ground that domestic tribunals are not bound by the technical rules of procedure contained in the Evidence Act.”
However, a limited use of these statements be made where the charged officer admits them and does not wish to cross-examine those witnesses.
Where the deposition before the inquiry officer differs from his earlier statement.
852. In such a situation, it is his deposition made during the inquiry in the presence of the charged employee which shall be taken into account. The earlier statement, to the extent it is contrary to his deposition, shall be discarded.
Should the statements be supplied in case of defence witness also?
853. Sometimes, it may happen that a person who was examined in investigation or inquiry is not produced as a prosecution witness but the charged employee cites him as a defence witness. The question is that whether in such a earlier statement, if any, made by him in investigation be supplied to the defence. The answer to this question is 'No'. The reason is that the earlier statement can be used by defence for contradiction only and not for corroboration.
(Kehar Singh v. State, AIR 1988 SC 1883).
Post a Comment