Laxmi Kant Tripathi vs Union Of India on 29 July, 2025
6. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that the
applicant was denied to produce defence witness on his behalf. Not
even a single witness was allowed by the inquiry officer for the
reason that he considered them as irrelevant. It was argued that the
inquiry officer cannot decide the relevancy of the witness for
allowing the defence witness. As per Rule 14(11)(ii) of CCS (CCA)
Rules, the IO will ask the Charged Official to 'submit a list of
witnesses to be examined on his behalf'. When such list is submitted
then the IO is under the statutory obligation to allow the witnesses for
examination. It is mandatory on the IO in terms of Rule 14(17) of
CCS (CCA) Rules to allow the defence witness for examination. To
substantiate this fact, learned counsel referred to the law laid down
by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Jagdish Prasad
Singh Vs State of UP & Ors reported in MANU/UP/1380/1990; the
law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the
case of Ranjan Sarvate Vs Allahabad Bank and Ors reported in
MANU/MP/0811/2012 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble High
Court of Jharkhand in the case of Badal Prasad Vs The State of
Jharkhand and Ors reported in MANU/JH/0406/2000. It was argued
that the respective Courts in the aforesaid cases have held that the
inquiry officer is not clubbed with the powers to hold that defence
witneses are not materially important and that the delinquent must be
given opportunity to produce witnesses to prove his defence.