Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. On consideration of the rival contentions and perusal of the record, we are of the opinion that there is substantial force in the arguments of the Respondents. Rule 16 (iii) ibid has been extracted below:

{ Rule 16.(iii) If the accused police officer does not admit the misconduct, the Enquiry Officer shall proceed to record evidence in support of the accusation, as is available and necessary to support the charge. As far as possible the witnesses shall be examined direct and in the presence of the accused, who shall be given opportunity to take notes of their statements and cross-examine them. The Enquiry Officer is empowered, however, to bring on record the earlier statement of any witness whose presence cannot, in the opinion of such officer, be procured without undue delay, inconvenience or expense if he considers such statement necessary provided that it has been recorded and attested by a police officer superior in rank to the accused officer, or by a Magistrate and is either signed by the person making it or has been recorded by such officer during an investigation or a judicial enquiry or trial. The statements and documents so brought on record in the departmental proceedings shall also be read out to the accused officer and he shall be given an opportunity to take notes. Unsigned statements shall be brought on record only through recording the statements of the officer or Magistrate who had recorded the statement of the witness concerned. The accused shall be bound to answer any questions which the enquiry officer may deem fit to put to him with a view to elucidating the facts referred to in the statements of documents thus brought on record. (emphasis added) We do not agree with the learned counsel for the Applicant that this rule would not apply in the instant case. The driver has given a wrong address because of which he is untraceable. It would certainly be difficult to produce him before the enquiry authority without considerable effort and expense. The official witnesses for the prosecution have testified before the enquiry authority that the driver, who could not be produced before the enquiry authority, had stated that the delinquents had taken Rs.200/- from him and gave him a receipt for only Rs 100/-. The appellate authority has correctly noted that the persons manning the PRG team had no prejudice against the Applicants. It is also not the case of the Applicants that the action of the PRG team was malafide. This case is distinguishable from OA number 1064 of 2008 because in that OA both the drivers had testified before the enquiry authority that they had not given any illegal gratification to the applicant therein, whereas in the instant OA one of the drivers had not appeared before the enquiry authority and the official witnesses had stated that the driver, who did not appear before the enquiry authority, had made the statement that he had given illegal gratification to the Applicants. It cannot be said that the statement has been made by the official witnesses out of malice. Credence has, therefore, to be put on the statement of the official witnesses. The enquiry authority was well within the rules to bring the testimony of the untraced driver on record under Rule 16(iii) ibid. No other argument was pressed before us by the learned counsel for the parties. Considering all the circumstances, it cannot be said that there was no evidence against the Applicants.