Sukh Ram vs State of H.P. and Others

V.P. Gupta, J.—Sukh Ram has filed this letters patent appeal against the order, dated 22nd May, 1975 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 60 of 1973, by which the writ petition of the Appellant was dismissed.

The Appellant was a Co-operative Inspector in Chauntra Circle of Tehsil Jogindernagar, District Mandi. He filed a civil suit in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Bilaspur, seeking the reliefs: (a) with respect to recovery of arrears on account of salary, etc., (b) quashing of certain adverse entries, and (c) for declaration that he was senior to certain persons. The Appellant alleges that the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Himachal Pradesh, felt aggrieved and started departmental proceedings against him on some charges. As a result the departmental proceedings the Appellant was dismissed from service with effect from 23rd November, 1971, vide order, dated 29th November, 1971, (copy Annexure X). The Appellant filed an appeal but the same was also dismissed on 22nd February, 1973 (copy Annexure Z). Thereafter the Appellant filed Civil Writ Petition No. 60 of 1973 in this Court on various grounds challenging the order of his dismissal from service but this writ petition was also dismissed on 22nd May, 1975, and all the contentions of the Appellant were disallowed by the learned single Judge.

Shri A.K. Goel, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Appellant, contended that the order under appeal is liable to be quashed on various grounds raised in the grounds of appeal.

Shri Malkiat Singh, Assistant Advocate-General, appearing on behalf of the Respondents, contended that the order of the learned single Judge is a well reasoned order and does not require any interference.

We have considered the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties.

Besides other contentions, one of the contentions of the Appellant''s Counsel was that the provisions of Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter shortly called the Rules of 1965) have not been followed. The Appellant was not supplied with the copies of the statements of Sarvshri Mani Chand and Dhalu Ram inspite of his repeated requests, and was also not supplied with the various documents relied upon by the prosecution.

Another contention of the Appellant''s Counsel was that the statements of Sarvshri Sudesh Singh and Surinder Kumar witnesses were recorded without giving sufficient notice to the Appellant and that these witnesses were not mentioned in the list of witnesses supplied to the Appellant. Similarly certain documents which were not relied upon in the list of documents supplied to the Appellant were taken in evidence. The contention of the learned Counsel was that the Inquiry Officer did not give any reasons for allowing additional evidence and the Inquiry Officer has proceeded in an arbitrary manner. According to the learned Counsel even in ex-parte proceedings no additional evidence could be taken on record without proper notice to the Appellant.

The Respondents'' Counsel contended that no prejudice has been caused to the Appellant and that the Appellant had, in fact, been shown the statements of the two witnesses (namely, Sarvshri Mani Chand and Dhalu Ram) as is apparent from Annexures R.C. and R.D. Further, the Appellant was being proceeded against ex-parte, therefore, there was no question of giving him any notice with respect to the taking of additional evidence.

Vide Office Memorandum, dated 30th July, 1969 (copy Annexure A), the Appellant was informed that an enquiry under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1965 was proposed to be held against him and alongwith Annexure A, the statement of allegations (Annexure B), statement showing the charges framed on the basis of allegations (Annexure C), list of witnesses (Annexure D) and list of documents which prove the charges (Annexuic E) were supplied to the Appellant.

The Appellant vide his reply, dated 14th August, 1969 (Annexure F) denied the charges levelled against him and also stated that the statements of Sarvshri Mani Chand Guleria and Dhalu Ram were not made available to him and thus he showed his inability to submit the list of remaining documents to be inspected by him and to be produced in defence. He also prayed that he be given the assistance of Government servant for inspecting the additional documents and in assisting him in presenting his case before the Inquiry Officer. He desired to be heard in person and gave a list of witnesses in support of his defence and further requested that names and full particulars of 15 witnesses were not to his knowledge and that this could only be done after he was allowed full inspection of the documents, etc.

The Appellant also submitted a reply to the charges on 14th August, 1969 (Annexure G) alongwith the list of witnesses (Annexure H).

On 25th August, 1969, the Appellant again submitted an application and desired to inspect and take extracts from the documents and requested the authorities to make these documents available to him. The list of documents given with this application is Annexure J.

The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Himachal Pradesh, framed another charge sheet against the Appellant, and vide Office Memorandum, dated 5th June, 1970, a departmental enquiry regarding this additional charge was also entrusted to the Inquiry Officer who had been authorised to hold the enquiry with respect to the earlier five charges.

From the enquiry proceedings file it appears that the Appellant appeared before the Inquiry Officer for the first time on 27th April, 1970, but a stay order from the Court of Senior Sub-judge, Bilaspur, was produced. For this reason the enquiry did not proceed. Thereafter the Presenting Officer of the department and the Appellant appeared in person before the Inquiry Officer on 29th May, 1970. The Appellant stated that certain documents mentioned in Annexure J had not been shown to him. The Inquiry Officer recorded an order that items 2 and 4 had been inspected by the Appellant on 29th May, 1970, and items 1 and 3 would be shown to him on the next date of hearing, i.e. 24th June, 1970. Thereafter the enquiry was adjourned from time to time and it was again stayed on 22nd July, 1970, as some interim stay order had been received from the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Bilaspur. The enquiry again commenced on 16th December, 1970, and was taken up on 22nd January, 1971. Due to absence of the Presenting Officer it was adjourned to 16th March, 1971. On 16th March, 1971, the evidence of Sarvshri C.S. Rana and Dhalu Ram was recorded and the enquiry was adjourned to 17th March, 1971. On 17th March, 1971, the evidence of Sarvshri Mani Chand Guleria, S.W. Mehta and Narotam Dass was recorded and it was adjourned to 17th May, 1971. On 17th May, 1971, the Appellant absented himself on medical grounds and the enquiry was adjourned to 31st May, 1971. On 31st May, 1971 the Appellant again absented himself and, therefore, ex-parte proceedings were taken against him. On 31st May, 1971, no time was left to record evidence, therefore, the enquiry was postponed to 1st June, 1971. On 1st June, 1971, the statements of Sarvshri C.L. Sharma, C.S. Rana and Surinder Kumar Vyas were recorded and the enquiry concluded.

After appraisal of the evidence the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 14th June, 1971, (Annexure T). The Inquiry Officer gave a finding that charges levelled against the Appellant had been proved.

A show cause notice, dated 29th June, 1971, (Annexure U) was issued to the Appellant and the Appellant submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 6th June, 1971 (Annexure W). After considering the reply, the appointing authority passed the order of dismissal on 29th November, 1971. The dismissal from service was with effect from 23rd November, 1971.

From the above history of the case, it is clear that the names of Sarvshri Mani Chand and Dhalu Ram were mentioned in the list of witnesses relied upon by the prosecution at serial Nos. 4 and 5 (Annexure D). It is admitted that the copies of the statements of these two witnesses had not been supplied to the Appellant inspite of his repeated requests and objections at various stages. The Appellant at the initial stage requested on 14th August, 1969, (Annexure F) for copies of the statements of these two witnesses. Thereafter he again requested on 25th August, 1969 (Annexure I). He again made a request on 22nd January, 1971 (Annexure K), and 17th March, 1971 (Annexure L). Inspite of these repeated requests of the Appellant it appears that copies of the statements of these two witnesses were not supplied to the Appellant.

The learned Counsel for the Respondents referred to Annexures RC and RD and on the basis of these annexures he wanted us to conclude that the statements of these two witnesses had been shown to the Appellant and that the Appellant had, in fact, taken an extract of these documents.

Annexure RC is a letter, dated 25th August, 1969, from the District Co-operative and Supplies Officer, Mandi, to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Himachal Pradesh, wherein it has been mentioned that the statements of Sarvshri Mani Chand and Dhalu Ram were received from the D.S.P. Anti-corruption Unit, Mandi, on 15th August 1969, and the same were shown to the Appellant on 18th August, 1969, through a special messenger in the presence of the District Co-operative and Supplies Officer, Bilaspur. Firstly, in this annexure there is no mention that the copies of the statements were supplied to the Appellant, secondly, it is no where mentioned that the extracts from these statements were taken down by the Appellant. It is a correspondence between two officers of the Co-operative Department and the Appellant is no party to this correspondence. There is no affidavit of the District Co-operative and Supplies Officer, Bilaspur, or the alleged special messenger to the effect that the Appellant took the extracts from these statements as is now contended by the Respondents'' Counsel. On the other hand, the Appellant has filed an affidavit that he was not supplied with the copies of these statements. In these circumstances Annexure RC is of no help to the Respondents'' Counsel.

In Annexure RD, the Appellant has mentioned on 6th August, 1969 that he has not inspected the statement of Sarvshri Mani Chand and Dhalu Ram and that these may be made available to him before 14th August, 1969. This annexure, therefore, is also not of any help to the Respondents'' Counsel.

In view of these facts we are left with no other alternative except to hold that the statements of Sarvshri Mani Chand and Dhalu Ram were not supplied to the Appellant before the start of the enquiry proceedings although they were the witnesses mentioned in the list. The provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1965 are mandatory and the non-supply of the copies of the statements of these witnesses vitiates the enquiry proceedings.

It has been held in The The State of Punjab Vs. Bhagat Ram,

The meaning of a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken is that the Government servant is afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against charges on which inquiry is held. The Government servant should be given an opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence. He can do so when he is told what the charges against him are. He can do so by cross-examining the witnesses produced against him. The object of supplying 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 statements 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.

A similar view is taken in Tirlok Nath v. Union of India and Ors. 1967 S.L.R. 759, wherein it has been held:

Again had the copies of the documents been furnished to the Appellant he might, after perusing them, will have exercised his right under the rule and asked for an oral inquiry to be held. Therefore, in our view the failure of the Inquiry Officer to furnish the Appellant with copies of the documents such as the first information report and the statements recorded at the Shidipura house and during the investigation must be held to have caused prejudice to the Appellant in making his defence at the Inquiry. The inquiry held, must, in these circumstances, be regarded as one in violation not only of Rule 55 but also of Article 311(2). Accordingly we quash the order of removal of the Appellant from service passed by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi.

The Inquiry Officer recorded the statements of Sarvshri Sudesh Singh and Surinder Kumar on 1st June, 1971. These two witnesses had not been mentioned in the list of witnesses supplied to the Appellant. Under Rule 14(15) of the Rules of 1965, the Inquiry Officer is competent to allow the Presenting Officer to produce evidence not included in the list given to the Government servant or the Inquiry Officer may itself call for new evidence. There is no doubt that this provision gives a discretion to the Inquiry Officer but at the same time the Inquiry Officer can only allow this evidence if it appears to him to be necessary before the close of the case on behalf of the disciplinary authority. We have perused the orders, dated 31st May, 1971, and 1st June, 1971, of the Inquiry Officer and we find that no reasons have been given by the Inquiry Officer before recording the statements of these witnesses. This procedure adopted by the Inquiry Officer is clearly in contravention of Rule 14(15) of the Rules of 1965.

The learned Counsel for the Respondents contended that the Appellant was being proceeded ex-parte and, therefore, no notice or reasoning was required to be given by the Inquiry Officer. We cannot agree with this contention of the learned Counsel because at one stage if some oral documentary evidence is relied upon by the prosecution then the Government servant may feel that upon the basis of such evidence no harm is likely to be done to him and he may choose to be absent and get ex-parte proceedings. It does not mean that other evidence not relied upon by the prosecution can be allowed to be produced during the course of the enquiry without a valid notice to the Government servant. This will in other words amount to denial of a reasonable opportunity to the Government servant.

Similarly, the prosecution had relied upon the documents mentioned in the list (Annexure E). It appears that during the course of the enquiry some other documents were also added although they were not included in the list of documents. A perusal of the order, dated 29th May, 1971, shows that copies of some documents mentioned in Annexure J were not supplied to the Appellant inspite of specific requests.

Thus taking all these circumstances into consideration, we are of the view that a reasonable opportunity had not been afforded to the Appellant by the Inquiry Officer and for this reason the enquiry proceedings are vitiated and have to be quashed.

As we are quashing the enquiry on the grounds mentioned above, therefore, it is unnecessary to deal with other grounds raised by the Appellant in his grounds of appeal.

As a result of the above discussion, this appeal is allowed and the order of the learned single Judge, dated 22nd May, 1975, is set aside. The writ petition filed by the Appellant is accepted and the order of dismissal of the Appellant, dated 29th November, 1971 (Annexure X) as also the appellate order, dated 22nd February, 1973 (Annexure Z) are quashed.

The cost of this appeal, which is assessed at Rs. 200/-, shall be paid by the Respondent to the Appellant.