M P SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has impugned the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 6th July, 2004. Contention of the petitioner before us is that in 1999, a decision was taken by the respondent to hold a joint inquiry against the petitioner as well as two Inspectors and once such a decision was taken by the respondent, the inquiry against the petitioner ought to have been joint with two Inspectors. It was contended that inquiry against petitioner alone cannot be conducted. It has also been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that even the advice of the CVC was for holding a joint inquiry and that advice under Article 317 of the Constitution is binding on the respondent. Lastly, it was submitted before us that the petitioner was called as a witness against the inquiry conducted against two Inspectors. Therefore, he will be prejudiced in his defence and it would be contrary to the rules of the respondent where co accused cannot be compelled to be witness against one's self. We have perused the order passed by the C.A.T. In paragraph 8 of the impugned order, it has been specifically mentioned that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case when the mistake was detected that no inquiry was conducted jointly against the petitioner. A conscious decision was taken to initiate inquiry against the petitioner. The argument of the petitioner that on account of his being called as a witness and petitioner having deposed as a witness against the two Inspectors, he was compelled to depose as a co-accused is not correct when the petitioner gave evidence as a witness his testimony was not recorded as co-accused. Therefore, the reliance placed by the petitioner on the rules pertaining to the deposition of a witness who is a co-accused is not applicable in the present case.

(2.) In view of the Articles of Charges can it be said that inquiry to be initiated against the petitioner is bad in law. Charges are re-produced as under:

(3.) In view of aforesaid charges when there is a role assigned to the petitioner it is only after inquiry is conducted truth will come out therefore we cannot stop the inquiry at the threshold.