1970 (3) TMI 165 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Reasonable opportunity to show cause.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Authority of the dismissing officer.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Reasonable Opportunity to Show Cause:
The respondent contended that his request for copies of witness statements recorded during the inquiry was arbitrarily rejected, denying him a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed action. The High Court found that although the request for copies was denied, the respondent had a full and fair opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and present his defense. Hence, the High Court did not accept the respondent's claim that he was denied a reasonable opportunity to show cause.

2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The respondent alleged that the Enquiry Officer was in frequent consultation with the Anti-Corruption Branch during the inquiry, and the materials gathered from these consultations were used against him without his knowledge. The High Court found that the Enquiry Officer had indeed consulted the Anti-Corruption Branch and utilized the materials gathered from these consultations, which were not disclosed to the respondent, thus violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the High Court set aside the order of dismissal.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's conclusion. It emphasized that tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions are not bound by strict rules of evidence and can obtain information from all sources, provided the information used against a party is disclosed to them. The Supreme Court found no evidence that the Enquiry Officer used any undisclosed materials from the Anti-Corruption Branch in his findings. It concluded that the enquiry was based solely on the evidence recorded during the proceedings, and there was no violation of natural justice.

3. Authority of the Dismissing Officer:
The respondent argued that he was appointed by the Inspector General of Police, while the dismissal order was passed by a subordinate authority, the Superintendent of Police, making the dismissal illegal. The Supreme Court examined the records and found that the respondent was appointed as a permanent Sub-Inspector by the Superintendent of Police, not the Inspector General of Police. Therefore, the Superintendent of Police was the competent authority to dismiss the respondent, and the dismissal order was valid.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. It held that the respondent had a fair opportunity to defend himself, there was no violation of natural justice, and the Superintendent of Police was the competent authority to dismiss the respondent. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal to the appellants.