IMPORTANT POINT
The statements u/s 161 Criminal Procedure Code can be produced in a disciplinary enquiry and when the said statements had been given to the delinquent in advance and full opportunity was granted to him to cross-examine the said witnesses, the requirement of natural justice was duly complied with.

JUDGMENT

Kirpal, J.-This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court which dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the Single Judge who had allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 quashing the order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) which had upheld the dismissal of the said respondent No. 1 pursuant to the proceedings which had been held.

2. Respondent No. 1 was initially appointed as cashier-cum-godown keeper by the appellant bank in the year 1961. He was promoted as Head-Cashier on 25.3.1970 and was posted at Sunel Branch of the Bank. In June, 1973, he was transferred to Sangod Branch.

3. On 31.3.1975, the appellant lodged with the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as C.B.I. ), an F.I.R. in which it was, inter alia, alleged that while working as the cashier at the Sunel Branch during the year 1970-1971, the said respondent had demanded and accepted illegal gratification from a number of persons in consideration of his showing favours to them in getting their loans sanctioned. The C.B.I. submitted its final report on 21.2.1977 stating that no reliable evidence was available in support of the allegations and that the evidence against the said respondent was scanty. The final report was accepted by the Court on 2.11.1977 and no prosecution of the respondent took place.

4. In the meantime departmental disciplinary proceedings were commenced by the appellant. On 22.3.1976, a charge-sheet was served on the respondent. These charges were as follows :

"(i) You demanded and accepted bribe from the following persons as mentioned against each for arrang- ing sanction of bank loans in their favour :

Name Amount of Bribe

S/Shri Rs.

Ashraf Ali 50/-

Dhanna Lal 50/-

Raghu Nath 100/-

Mitthu Lal 50/-

Mohan Lal 350/-

Bapu lal 300/-

Ram Singh 350/-

Kanhi Ram 350/-

Mangu 375/-

(ii) You demanded and accepted Rs. 20/- in the month of May 1973 as bribe from Smt. Phuli Bai sweepers at Sunel Branch for arranging payment of bonus amounting to Rs. 80/- payable to her.

(iii) You demanded and accepted bribe of Rs. 500/- (Rs. 50/- per month) w.e.f. August, 1972 to May, 1973 from Shri Nemi Chand for arranging for him a temporary appointment of a Peon at the branch on 5th August, 1972.

(iv) You raised a fictitious loan of Rs. 1000/- at the branch in the name of one Shri Panna Lal by getting the same guaranteed by your brother Shri Jagdish Chandra."

5. After the Inquiry Officer was appointed, the inquiry proceedings commenced. Deposition of a number of prosecution witnesses was recorded including the statements of Ashraf Ali and Dhanna Lal, from whom bribe was alleged to have been demanded for getting the loan sanctioned. Some of the other witnesses, however, turned hostile. Statements of the concerned witnesses including those of Ashraf Ali and Dhanna Lal had earlier been recorded by the appellant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. During the examination of these witnesses before the Inquiry Officer, these statements were brought on record as part of the deposition. It appears that copies of these statements were given to the respondent workman in advance and the contents of the same were admitted by the witnesses and opportunity was given to the said workman to cross-examine them.

6. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 10.2.1979 and as a consequence thereof, a notice was issued to respondent No. 1 to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. A reply was submitted by the workman on 11.3.1979, the appellant passed an order dismissing him from service. An appeal, against the order of dismissal filed before the appropriate authority was dismissed on 2.8.1979.

7. The respondent then approached the Conciliation Officer, Kota and a failure report was sent to the Government. Thereupon the Central Gove