In the aforesaid backdrop, we have to consider the most relevant issue involved in this case. Admittedly, the Enquiry Officer, the High Court on Administrative side as well on Judicial side, had placed a very heavy reliance on the statement made by Shri C.B. Gajjar, Advocate, Mr. G.G. Jani, complainant and that of Shri P.K. Pancholi, Advocate, in the preliminary inquiry before the Vigilance Officer. Therefore, the question does arise as to whether it was permissible for either of them to take into consideration their statements recorded in the preliminary inquiry, which had been held behind the back of the Appellant, and for which she had no opportunity to cross-examine either of them.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 2668 of 2005
Decided On: 18.03.2013
Nirmala J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
B.S. Chauhan and F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, JJ.
Author: B.S. Chauhan, J.
Citation:MANU/SC/0257/2013,AIR 2013 SC 1513
Print Page
