Held, in the instant case no part of the statement made by PW-3 has been relied upon by the inquiry officer It is settled law that unless a wrong at a domestic inquiry results in a prejudice to the accused, the same is immaterial.
The first question was to seek an answer pertaining to the difference in what he told Insp. V. K. Kalia on 14.5.2005 and what he deposed before the inquiry officer and the second was the question by way of suggestion that he had been won over by the petitioner. The first question was not in the nature of cross-examination. It only sought a response of the witness with reference to the alleged previous statement made by the witness. The second question assumed the character of a cross-examination, but its nature showed the trivialness of the question, answer whereof was expected. It was noted that the inquiry officer had not referred to the same.
