1957 (9) TMI 41 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the respondent was denied a reasonable opportunity to present his case? Whether he was prevented from cross examining the witnesses, who gave evidence in support of the charge? Held that - No violation of the principles of natural justice. The witnesses have been,examined at great length, and have spoken to all relevant facts bearing on the question, and it is not suggested that there is any other matter, on which they could have spoken. We do not accept the version of the respondent that he was not allowed to put any questions to the witnesses. The enquiry before Mr. Byrne was not defective, that the respondent had full opportunity of placing his evidence before him, -and that he did avail himself of the same.

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
2. Denial of opportunity to make an oral statement and examine defense witnesses.
3. Appropriateness of using a writ petition under Article 226 for such disputes.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Opportunity to Cross-Examine Witnesses:
The respondent claimed that he was not permitted to cross-examine witnesses who deposed against him during the enquiry. This allegation was contradicted by Mr. Byrne, the Enquiry Officer, who stated that the respondent was given the opportunity to cross-examine all witnesses, but he chose to question only one. The court examined the conflicting statements and found Mr. Byrne's account more credible, noting his high position and lack of motive to falsify evidence. The court also observed that the respondent did not lodge a written complaint about being denied cross-examination during the enquiry, which would have been expected if his claim were true. The court concluded that the respondent was not refused permission to cross-examine the witnesses, thus the enquiry was not defective on this ground.

2. Denial of Opportunity to Make an Oral Statement and Examine Defense Witnesses:
The respondent contended that he and his witnesses were not allowed to give their evidence by way of examination-in-chief, and that he was not permitted to put questions to his witnesses. The court noted that while the procedure followed by Mr. Byrne did not adhere strictly to the Evidence Act, such strict adherence is not required in tribunal enquiries, provided the rules of natural justice are observed. These rules include allowing a party to adduce relevant evidence, taking evidence in the presence of the party, and giving the opportunity to cross-examine. The court found that these principles were satisfied in the enquiry, as witnesses were examined at length and spoke to all relevant facts. Additionally, the respondent did not raise these complaints in his initial explanation, suggesting they were an afterthought. The court concluded that the enquiry was not defective and the respondent had full opportunity to present his case.

3. Appropriateness of Using a Writ Petition Under Article 226:
The court observed that a writ petition under Article 226 is not the appropriate proceeding for adjudicating disputes of this nature, where an alternative and equally efficacious remedy, such as a civil suit, is available. The court emphasized that such disputes often require taking evidence, which is not suitable for writ petitions. However, considering the time-barred nature of a potential civil suit, the court decided to address the merits of the case rather than dismissing the writ petition outright. The court reiterated that when an adequate legal remedy exists, it is generally sound discretion to refuse interference via a writ petition unless there are compelling reasons.

Conclusion:
The court held that the respondent was given a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and present his case, and that the enquiry conducted by Mr. Byrne was not defective. The court also highlighted the inappropriateness of using a writ petition under Article 226 for such disputes but decided to address the merits due to the specific circumstances. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the writ application was dismissed.

← Previous Next →