N.K.Mitra, S.R.Singh, JJ. - (1.) Present appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 15.9.1999. The facts necessary to shed light on the disputation involved in the matter are that the petitioner-appellant was suspended from service by means of the order dated 8.12.1998 passed by the Survey Commissioner, Wakfs, U.P. in contemplation of disciplinary enquiry. The appellant has already been served with charge-sheet. The charge as unfolded in the charge-sheet reads as under : ..(VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED)..
(2.) The suspension order and the charge-sheet were sought to be quashed in the writ petition on the premises, inter alia, that evidence proposed to be adduced in aid of the charges framed against the appellant was inadmissible. The learned single Judge held the view that the question of admissibllity of evidence may aptly be raised before the enquiry officer/disciplinary authority and as a sequel, disposed of the petition studded with the direction that subject to active co-operation and regular participation of the petitioner towards conclusion of the enquiry, the appointing authority/enquiry officer would ensure that the departmental enquiry was brought to a logical conclusion within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment and further that subsistence allowance for the month of July and August, 1999, would be paid positively to the appellant/petitioner within 15 days from the date of production of certified copy of the order.
(3.) Sri S. U. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant, while reiterating the submissions made by him before the learned single Judge, made a further submission that the charge which the petitioner was indicted of, was generalised and vague and therefore, the disciplinary proceeding commends Itself to be quashed. The question as to the admissibillty has been brought to bear with reference to the statement of one Mahesh Singh recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. in a Criminal Case in respect of malversation of scholarship money. The learned counsel submitted that the report dated 18.9.1998 (Annexure-4 to the Stay Application), made by the District Magistrate Jyotibha Phulenagar to Secretary. Minority Welfare and Wakf, U. P. Lucknow, has its genesis in the statement of Mahesh Singh recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. which, submitted the learned counsel, was inadmissible. The learned counsel placed credence on a decision of the Supreme Court in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Sri Nath Gupta, AIR 1997 SC 243. The said decision, in our opinion, is unavailing to the present case inasmuch as it has been clearly ruled in that case that "strict rules of evidence are not applicable and are not required to be followed in domestic inquiry". The statement under Section 161, Cr. P.C. may not be admissible In the criminal trial, but the said statement can be produced in a disciplinary inquiry and the person who made the statement, may be examined before the Inquiry officer. In such view of the matter, the learned single Judge has rightly held that the question of admissibillty of any evidence does not arise at this stage.;