TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1969 (11) TMI 92
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iples of natural justice with the result that the order of dismissal passed subsequently on the respondent could not be sustained. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows. The respondent used to serve as treasure guard in the Eastern Railway. A charge sheet was issued by the Chief Cashier of the Railway on August 3, 1959 wherein allegations of misappropriation of cash belonging to Government were leveled against him. An Inquiry Committee consisting of three persons, namely, A.K. Roy Choudhury, Divisional Accounts Officer, Mani Chakraborty, Divisional Personnel Officer and H.N. Chatterjee, Divisional Engineer, was constituted to inquire into the charges. The charge sheet had been issued after a fact finding comm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....S.C.R. 319. According to the High Court: If the enquiring authority has a duty to come to a conclusion as to the guilt of the delinquent upon an evaluation or assessment of the evidence, then it is absolutely necessary that he who should decide the case should hear the evidence. It was impossible to evaluate the evidence of a witness taken on proxy, because one of the salient features of such proceedings is to observe the demeanour of the witness." The High Court turned down the contention that according to the Discipline and Appeal Rules for railway servants the Disciplinary Authority had to look into the record itself in which case any defect in the Inquiry Committee would not be fatal. The High Court held that if the report of the Inqu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted after the filing of the written statement. At the inquiry, a definite charge in writing must be framed and explained to the railway servant in respect of each offence which had not been admitted by him and the evidence in respect of it along with any evidence which he may adduce in defence must be recorded in his presence. The accused railway servant may present his case with the assistance of another railway servant. Sub-rule (3) of the rule provides: The Inquiring Authority shall, in the course of the inquiry, consider such documentary evidence and take such oral evidence including cross-examination of the railway servant and witnesses, as may be relevant or material in regard to the charges. The railway servant shall have the oppor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the truthfulness or otherwise of a particular witness examined during the inquiry. From the stage antecedent to the framing of the charges everything is recorded in writing: the allegations on which the charges are based are made known to the railway servant and he is called upon to file his written statement after looking into all the relevant records. The oral evidence of all the witnesses tendered during the enquiry is recorded in writing. Where as here the oral evidence is recorded in the presence of three persons constituting the Inquiry Committee, any impression created by the demeanour of a particular witness on the mind of any one member cannot affect the conclusion afterwards arrived at jointly by them. It cannot be suggested that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vidence recorded cannot make any difference to the case of the railway servant. The record will speak for itself and it is the record consisting of the documents and the oral evidence as recorded which must form the basis of the report of the Inquiry Committee. The committee is not the punishing authority and the personal impression of a member of the committee cannot possibly affect the decision of the Disciplinary" Authority. In a state of affairs like this we cannot see any reason for holding that any known principles of natural justice is violated when ,one member of the committee is substituted by another. 9. The observations of this Court in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao's case [1959] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 319 have no bearing on the facts of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....strate to record such remarks (if any) as he thinks material respecting the demeanour of a witness whilst under examination. Order XVIII Rule 15 of the CPC empowers a Judge to treat the evidence recorded by his predecessor in office as if it had been taken down by him or under his direction under the said rule and he may proceed with the suit from the stage at which his predecessor left it, whenever his predecessor-in-office is prevented from concluding the trial of a suit by reason of death or transfer or some other cause. Instances are not rare when such powers have to be used either by a Judge hearing a civil suit or a Magistrate or a Sessions Judge hearing a criminal matter. In the vast majority of cases both civil and criminal, a Judge....