to the holding of the departmental enquiry by an officer who first detected the alleged misconduct or irregularity ought to have been taken at the earliest time. It is not merely a case of a person, who had detected first also acting as an Enquiry Officer. On the other hand, the Enquiry Officer was relying on a statement of the petitioner alleged to have been made in his presence that he committed the misconduct and forgery. He had turned himself as a witness and the Enquiry Officer's statement itself was relied on as MW-1. That in my view, would still make all the difference where a witness was also an adjudicator. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court in P. Raman (died) and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others 1999(6) SLR 334 rejected the plea of bias when the delinquent examined and cross-examined witnesses without raising the objection of bias during the enquiry, holding that the genuineness of the enquiry could not be questioned later on. This is not again connected to the fact situation where there were several witnesses, who had spoken about the misconduct attributed to the petitioner. In this case, whole report hinged on an alleged statement of the employee himself, who had later resiled and evidence of the management witness was that of the Enquiry Officer himself. The decision of the Madras High Court cited also cannot avail to the management to contend that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioner.
