TMI Blog1962 (5) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty Superintendent' of Police, Belgaum, started proceedings against the respondent, framed six charges against him, and called for his explanation. The respondent denied the charges and then a regular inquiry was held on November 4, 1954. Clause (8) of s. 545 of the Bombay Police Manual which lays down the procedure to be followed in such inquiries is as follows:- The officer conducting the inquiry should then recall all necessary witnesses in support of the charge and, in the defaulter's presence, read out any statements they may have made in the preliminary inquiry and record, if necessary any further statements they may have to make. He should then give the defaulter an opportunity of cross- examining each witness after his statement in support of the charge is completed, any such cross-examination being recorded below the statement of the witness concerned. In accordance with this provision the Deputy Superintendent recalled the witnesses who had been examined by Mr. Majumdar during the preliminary investigation, brought on record the previous statements given by them, and after putting a few questions to, them tendered them for cross-examination by the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent examination of them before the Deputy Superintendent of Police. In the result the order of dismissal was set aside. It is the correctness of this judgment that is now under challenge before us. The sole point for determination in this, appeal therefore is whether the procedure adopted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police in admitting the statements of witnesses examined before Mr. Majumdar in evidence is opposed to the rules of natural justice. The question is one of importance, because as appears from the cases which have come before us the procedure followed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police in this case is the one followed by many tribunals exercising quasijudicial powers. For a correct appreciation of the position, it is necessary to repeat what has often said that tribunals exercising quasi- judicial functions are not courts and that therefore they are not bound to follow the procedure prescribed for trial of actions in Courts nor are they bound by strict rules of evidence. They can, unlike Courts, obtain all information material for the points under enquiry from all sources, and through all channels, without being fettered by rules and procedure, which govern proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... police report was information on which the Tribunal was entitled to act, and as it was read at the enquiry, in the presence of the parties and they had been heard on it, there had been sufficient compliance with the rules of natural justice. We may next refer to the decision of this Court in the Union of India V. T.R. Verma (1958) S.C.R. 499. That arose out of a: Writ Petition filed by a Government servant in the High Court of Punjab, calling in question an order of dismissal passed against him, on the ground that the enquiry which resulted in the order had not been conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice. The facts were that when the petitioner, and his witnesses appeared for giving evidence, the enquiring officer took their examination on hand himself, put them questions, and after he had finished, asked them to make their statements. The complaint of the petitioner was that he and his witnesses should have been allowed to give their own evidence, and than cross-examined, and that the departure from the normal procedure in taking evidence, was a violation of the rules of natural justice. In rejecting this contention this Court observed as follows : Stating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me when a witness is called, the statement given previously by him behind the back of the party is put to him, and admitted in evidence, a copy thereof is given to the party, and he is given an opportunity to cross-examine him. To require in that case that the contents of the previous statement should be repeated by the witness word by word. and, sentence by sentence, is to insist on bare technicalities, and rules of natural justice are matters not of from but of substance. In our opinion they are sufficiently complied with when previous statements given by witnesses are read over to them, marked on their admission, copies thereof given to the person charged, and he is given an opportunity to cross-examine them. This question came up for consideration by this Court more recently in Philbari Tea Estate v. Its Workmen (1960) 1 S.C.R. 32. There the foots were that One of the workmen, B. N. Das was dismissed by the management as the result of an enquiry into a charge of theft. The Industrial Tribunal set aside this order on the ground that there had been no proper enquiry. What had happened was that the management had first made an investigation, and taken, statements of witnesses, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
