1976 (5) TMI 96 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the appellant was given a reasonable opportunity to lead evidence? Held that - There is no affidavit before us that any particular points argued before the Division Bench had not been referred to or dealt with by the Bench. Moreover the Division Bench had probably not dealt with all arguments on questions of fact because it did not consider it necessary to do so. After all it was not hearing an appeal against the findings of the departmental authorities. It pointed this out. Furthermore after hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant we are ourselves unable to see any point which could be raised on behalf of the appellant capable of vitiating the departmental proceedings. Unless such a point could be raised there could be no declaration that the departmental proceedings were null and void. There is also an application before us for revocation of grant of special leave to appeal by this Court on the ground that some material facts were suppressed or misrepresented for the purpose of obtaining special leave. Although the special leave petition does not state that all the points sought to be raised by it were not argued before the Division Bench this is not enough to merit cancellation of the special leave to appeal which was granted by this Court. At the time of grant of special leave the order refusing grant of certificate of fitness of the case for appeal to this Court must have been before this Court. We are unable now to see the point on which special leave was granted. But that too would not by itself merit a revocation of special leave at this stage after hearing arguments. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against judgment and order of Division Bench of Allahabad High Court regarding reduction in rank and premature retirement of appellant.

Analysis:
The appellant, an Income-tax Officer, appealed against an order reducing his rank to that of an Income-tax Inspector and his premature retirement. The appellant claimed the reduction was void and inoperative. The appellant joined as a Lower Division Clerk in 1922 and was promoted to Income-tax Officer in 1945. He was suspended in 1953 on charges of corruption and rule violations. The charges included entering into a partnership against rules, disproportionate investments, and negligence in duty. The appellant defended by citing previous exonerations, confusing charges, and lack of opportunity to present witnesses. The court noted no malafides were alleged against the investigating officers. The appellant's defense was likened to a common criminal defense blaming police hostility for misfortunes.

The court emphasized that denial of opportunity must contravene a mandatory provision of law or natural justice to vitiate the trial. The appellant's claim of being tried on previously enquired allegations was dismissed as no charges were framed earlier. The court highlighted the importance of proving prejudice resulting from a rule violation. The denial of producing witnesses was deemed inconsequential unless it affected the final decision. The court stressed that excluded evidence must be of a nature that denies natural justice to be material. The appellant's argument of technical objections to charges was rejected, emphasizing his responsibility to prove injustice.

The court reiterated that challenging departmental proceedings cannot be an appeal from findings or punishment. The appellant's plea lacked a jurisdictional effect on the departmental proceedings. The court cited precedents emphasizing that judicial decisions, even if incorrect, must be accepted unless jurisdiction is exceeded. The delay in the High Court's judgment was criticized for potentially missing important points. The court highlighted the importance of timely delivery of judgments for litigants' confidence in the justice system. The dismissal of the appeal and the application for revocation of special leave were upheld, with parties bearing their costs.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against the Division Bench's judgment, upholding the reduction in rank and premature retirement of the appellant. The court emphasized the importance of timely judicial processes and the need for litigants to have confidence in the justice system. The application for revocation of special leave was also dismissed, with parties directed to bear their own costs.