TMI Blog1986 (5) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the question whether there was any violation of Article 311 of the Constitution in regard to the documents and the statement of witnesses referred to in the affidavit of the petitioner dated 12-2-1977. 3. As many as 8 charges, charges of serious nature, were levelled against the appellant who was at the material time holding the post of Superintendent of Police The appellant was exonerated of all the carges except and save charges 1 and 2 and charge 8 partiy. The particulars of the charges were set out in the statement of allegations accompanying the charge-sheet Dated June 11, 1969. The appellant challenged the impugned order of dismissal from service in the High Court on a number of grounds. The High Court repelled all the contentions and dismissed the Writ Petition. It is not necessary to advert to these contentions inasmuch as the controversy has now been narrowed down to one central issue viz. whether there has been violation of principles of natural justice by reason of: (i) failure to supply copies of the statements of witnesses recorded ex parte at the pre-enquiry stage; and (ii) the failure to supply copies of the documents on which reliance was placed by the De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raise this point (in fact the special leave is restricted only to this point). 6. What transpired at the stage of special leave: Way back in 1977 a notice was issued by this Court to the respondents to show cause as to why special leave to appeal should not be granted to the appellant when the matter came up before this Court for grant of special leave. In response to the said notice, the respondents have filed their counter affidavits. The relevant portions of the affidavits extracted hereunder show that while the appellant has categorically asserted that the point was raised in the Court, the respondents have not been able to controvert the said statement in the affidavit in reply and deny the said allegation: The appellant had stated in his affidavit Dated 27.10 1975 sworn by the appellant as under: That the High Court has also omitted to consider the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner that there has been violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the Board of inquiry has placed reliance on certain documents which had not been disclosed to the petitioner during the course of enquiry. In the counter-affidavit Dated September, 1976 sworn b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to contend that the appellant is not entitled to urge this point in support of his appeal. The preliminary objection must therefore fail. 8. Was there refusal to supply copies ? An examination of the record clearly shows that even though the appellant had in terms demanded copies of the documents and statements in question the disciplinary authority had turned down the request. On December 3, 1963, the appellant had moved the Board for copies of documents and statements in question In the application made by the appellant, he has made the request in this behalf in the following terms: (1) That he has not so far been supplied with copies of the documents cited in evidence and of the statements made by persons named as witnesses on the eight charges framed against me by the first party vide annexures I and II to G.O. No. CR-70/1I-A-1962, dated 3.4. 1962 from Mukhya Sachiva. Uttar Pradesh. (2) That to prepare himself for cross-examination of the witnesses for rebuttal of prosecution evidence and for adduction of evidence in my defence, the applicant has to make a careful and detailed study of the said documents and statements. (3) That it is only after such a careful ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary authority made it a prestige issue. If only the disciplinary authority had asked itself the question: What is the harm in making available the material ? and weighed the pros and cons, the disciplinary authority could not reasonably have adopted such a rigid and adament attitude. On the one hand there was the risk of the time and effort invested in the departmental enquiry being wasted if the Courts came to the conclusion that failure to supply these materials would be net amount to denial of reasonable opportunity to the appellant to defend himself. On the other hand by making avaiable the copies of the documents and statements the disciplinary authority was not running any risk. There was nothing confidential or privileged in it, It is not even the case of the respondent that there was involved any consideration of security of State or privilege. No doubt the disciplinary authority gave an opportunity to the appellant to inspect (he documents and take notes as mentioned earlier. But even in this connection the reasonable request of the appellant to have the relevant portions of the documents extracted with the help of his stenographer was refused. He was told to himself mak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consider it necessary to burden the record by reproducing the said statement. The respondents have not been able to satisfy us that no prejudice was occasioned to the appellant. 11. Be that as it may, even without going into minute details it is evident that the appellant was entitled to have an access to the documents and statements throughout the course of the inquiry. He would have needed these documents and statements in order to cross-examine the 38 witnesses who were produced at the inquiry to establish the charges against him. So also at the time of arguments, he would have needed the copies of the documents. So also he would have needed the copies of the documents to enable him to effectively cross-examine the witnesses with reference to the contents of the documents, it is obvious that he could not have done so if copies had not been made available to him. Taking an overall view of the matter we have no doubt in our mind that the appellant has been denied a reasonable opportunity of exonerating himself. We do not consider it necessary to quote extensively from the authorities cited on behalf of the parties, beyond making passing reference to some of the citation, for, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statements is that the Government servant will be able to refer to the previous statements of the witnesses proposed to be examined against the Government servant. Unless the statements are given to the Government servant he will not be able to have an effective and useful cross-examination. It is unjust and unfair to deny the Government servant copies of witnesses examined during investigation and produced at the inquiry in support of the charges levelled against the Government servant. A synopsis does not satisfy the requirements of giving the Government servant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken .... 13. In view of the pronouncements of this Court it is impossible to take any other view As discussed earlier the facts and circumstances of this case also impel us to the conclusion that the appellant has been denied reasonable opportunity to defend himself. In the result, we are of the opinion that the impugned order of dismissal rendered by the disciplinary authority is violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the appellant has been denied reasonable opportunity of defending himself and is on that acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
