Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"O, Regarding the appellant's contention that there was no evidence to substantiate the charge against him, it may be observed that neither the High Court nor this Court can reexamine and re-assess the evidence in writ proceedings. Whether or not there is sufficient evidence against a delinquent to justify his dismissal from service is a matter on which this Court cannot embark. It may also be observed that departmental proceedings do not stand on the same footing as criminal prosecutions in which high degree of proof is required. it is true that in the instant case reliance was placed by the Superintendent of Police on the earlier statements made by the three police constables including Akki from which they resiled 'but that did not vitiate the enquiry or the impugned order of dismissal, as departmental proceedings are not governed by strict rules of evidence as contained in the Evidence Act. That apart, as already stated, copies of the staternents made by these constables were furnished to the appellant and he cross- examined all of them with the help of the police friend provided to him. It is also significant that Akki admitted in the course of his statement that he did make the former statement before P. aeteeeggrne On a So 0.A. No. 060/00375/2015 SL Khada-bazar police station, Belgaum, on November 21, 1961 (which revealed appellant's complicity m the~ smuggling activity) but when asked to explain as to why he made that statement, he expressed his inability to do so. The pr esent case . is, in our opinion, covered by a decision of this Courtin State of Mysore v. Shivabasappa, (1963) 2 SCR 943 = AIR 1963 SC 373 where it was held as follows:- "Domestic tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions are not courts and therefore, they are not bound to follow the procedure prescribed for trial of actions in courts nor are they bound by strict rules of evidence. They can, unlike courts, obtain all information material for the points under enquiry from all sources, and through all channels, 'without being fettered by rules and procedure which govern proceedin 1gs in court. The only obligation which the law casts on them is that they should not act on-any information which they may receive unless they put it to the party against who it is to be used and give him a fair opportunity to explain it. What is a fair opportunity must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, but where such an opportunity has been given, the proceedings are not open to attack on the ground that the . enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the procedure followed in courts. 2. In respect of taking the evidence in an enquiry before such titbunel the person against whom a charge is made shauld know the evidence which is given against him, so that he might be in a position to give his explanation. When the evidence is oral, normally the: explanation of the witness will in its entirety, take place before the party charged who will have it 1b The position is the same when a witnes by him behind the: