UOI Vs. ABID ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide impugned judgment and order dated 10.12.2008 the Tribunal has held that since the Inquiry Officer did not examine the respondent under rule 14 (18) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and additionally because the tentative reasons recorded by the Disciplinary Authority to disagree with the report of the Inquiry Officer were conclusive in nature, the impugned order levying penalty was liable to be quashed.

(2.) With respect to the first reasoning of the Tribunal we note that as per the decision reported as (1980) 3 SCC 304 Sunil Kumar Banerjee Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., mere non-examination of a charged officer with respect to the incriminating circumstances against him, unless backed by proof of prejudice, cannot vitiate the inquiry proceedings. The decision relied upon by the Tribunal reported as (1998) 3 SCC 227 Ministry of Finance and Anr. Vs. S.B.Ramesh is wholly inapplicable for the reason in the said case the charged officer had led no evidence in defence.

(3.) No prejudice has been shown.