TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 689X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l and void. The State of U.P. then filed a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed summarily on 4.2.82. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The Tribunal has found as a fact that copies of the documents which were proposed in the charge-sheet to be produced in the department proceedings as proof in support of articles of charges were not supplied to the respondent. This finding was based on the own admission of the appellant in the written statement that the copies of the documents mentioned in the charge-sheet were not supplied to the respondent which could be inspected by him at any time. The Tribunal further found that the copies of the statement recorded during the preliminary inquiry on the basis of which the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... principles of natural justice would be violated. Preliminary inquiry which is conducted invariably on the back of the delinquent employee may, often, constitute the whole basis of the charge-sheet. Before a person is, therefore, called upon to submit his reply to the charge sheet, he must, on a request made by him in that behalf, be supplied the copies of the statements of witnesses recorded during the preliminary enquiry particularly if those witnesses are proposed to be examined at the departmental trial. This principle was reiterated in Kashinath Dikshita vs. Union of India Ors. (1986) 3 SCC 229 (supra), wherein it was also laid down that this lapse would vitiate the departmental proceedings unless it was shown and established as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though it is admitted that the copies of the documents were not supplied to the respondent and although he had the right to inspect those documents, neither were the copies given to him nor were the records made available to him for inspection. If the appellant did not intend to give copies of the documents to the respondent, it should have been indicated to the respondent in writing that he may inspect those documents. Merely saying that the respondent could have inspected the documents at any time is not enough. he has to be informed that the documents, of which the copies were asked for by him may be inspected. The access to record must be assured to him. It has also been found that during the course of the preliminary enquiry, a numb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
