সতর্কীকরণ! কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত অধিকাংশ নজীর বিভিন্ন বই ও ওয়েবসাইট থেকে সংগ্রহ করা হয়েছে। এই সকল নজীর এর সঠিকতার বিষয়ে কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইট কোন নিশ্চয়তা প্রদান করে না। কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত নজীর এর উপর নির্ভর এর আগে সংশ্লিষ্ট নজীরটির রেফারেন্স মিলিয়ে নেওয়ার অনুরোধ করা হচ্ছে।
Enquiry Officers are not bound by the technical rules of evidence.
The Supreme Court observed that it is true that in numerous cases it has been held that domestic tribunals, like an Enquiry Officer, are not bound by the technical rules about evidence contained in the Indian Evidence Act, but it has no where been laid down that even substantive rules which would form part of principles of natural justice also can be ignored by the domestic tribunals. The principle that a fact sought to be proved must be supported by statements made in the presence of the person against whom the enquiry is held and that statements behind the back of the person charged are not to be treated as substantive evidence, is one of the basic principles which cannot be ignored on the mere ground that domestic tribunals are not bound by the technical rules of pro- cedure contained in the Evidence Act.
Central Bank of India v. P. C. Jain, AIR 1969 SC 983: (1969) 2 SCJ 583: 1969 MLJ (Cri) 748.
Relied on- 14 ds Khardah Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1964) 3 SCR 506: AIR 1964 SC 719 M/s. Kesoram Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Gangadhar, (1964) 2 SCR 809: AIR 1964 SC 708.
Info!
"Please note that while every effort has been made to provide accurate case references, there may be some unintentional errors. We encourage users to verify the information from official sources for complete accuracy."
