9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 718X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of probability is sufficient in the former case. There is no allergy even to 'hear-say evidence', if it is having some nexus. The verdict passed by the Tribunal is perfectly within the four walls of the law and is not liable to be assailed in any circumstance. No tenable ground brought to the notice. Interference declined and the Original Petition fails and dismissed accordingly. - O.P.(CAT) No. 200 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 27-9-2016 - MR. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON AND MR. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. FOR THE PETITIONER : ADVS. SRI. C.S. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, SMT. CHANDINI G. NAIR FOR THE RESPONDENT : ADV. SRI.K.SHRI HARI RAO, CGC, SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon,J. Challenge is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arred for a period of two years with cumulative effect. Feeling aggrieved of the said order, the matter was taken up by the petitioner before the appellate authority as provided under the relevant Rules. After considering the appeal, interference was declined and the appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority as per Annexure A11 order, which made the petitioner to rush to the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 867 of 2012. 4. The following were the prayers raised in the OA: 1.To call for the records leading to Annexure A1, A7, A9 and A11 to set aside the same. 2.To declare that the Inquiry held against the applicant having been vitiated by non-observance of the principles of natural justice and the finding of guilt being not supporte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n alternative available to the petitioner, which in fact was available only in the given set of facts and circumstances. The matter was dealt with in detail by this Court, wherein Ext.P6 judgment (to which one of us-PRRM(J)-was a party) was passed in support of the case projected by the petitioner and the merit of the case was directed to be considered. It was accordingly, that the matter was remitted to the Tribunal. Pursuant to Ext.P6 verdict, the merit of the case was considered by the Tribunal. After dealing with the facts and circumstances, including the proceedings pursued by the Enquiry Officer, the orders passed by the Disciplinary authority and the appellate order passed by the Appellate authority, the learned Tribunal referred to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not substantive evidence. It can be used to corroborate the statement of a witness. It can be used to contradict a witness. The first information report was considered by the Session Judge. Any special consideration of the statement of Hazura Singh under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could not have produced a different result by reason of the conclusions of the Sessions Judge as to rejecting the oral evidence of Nihal Kaur, Harmit Kaur and Hazura Singh as unreliable, untruthful and unworthy of credence. 9. There is no dispute with regard to the position of law sought to be canvassed by the petitioner with reference to Section 164 of Cr.P.C, but the verdict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
