Satya Dev vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 4 July, 2011
10. We have carefully considered the aforesaid submissions made by Shri Oberoi. We find however that the facts and circumstances of he present case are distinguishable from the aforesaid case of Azad Singh (supra). In the case of evidence recorded of PW1 we find that after the portion extracted above the enquiry officer proceeded to note the statement of the applicant as appearing in Ex. PW1A in full detail; he has stated that the witness was running a clinic in village Fatehpur Beri; the manner in which he had been approached by the Crime Branch officials and how the witness was brought to the police station and the manner in which the threat was given and money extorted. After recording this part of the statement made in Ex.PW1A the enquiry officer then proceeded also to detail the contents of the statement made by the witness in the preliminary enquiry which was marked as Ex.Pw1/B. It was after this that the witness was offered for cross-examination. There was detailed cross-examination of the witness by the various accused persons in this common disciplinary proceedings.