9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Clarity of Charges 2. Evidence Supporting the Charges 3. Contradictory Evidence Summary: 1. Clarity of Charges: The appellant argued that the charges were not clear. The charges framed against the appellant included showing undue favour to one candidate, manipulating the withdrawal of another candidate, and committing forgery by altering a nomination paper. The court found that the charges were vague and difficult for any officer to meet fairly. 2. Evidence Supporting the Charges: The appellant contended that there was no evidence to support the charges. The court noted that the evidence presented was perfunctory and did not substantiate the charges. The enquiry officer's report was criticized for accepting the complainant's version without discussing the inherent improbabilities in the statements. 3. Contradictory Evidence: The appellant argued that the evidence on record was contrary to the charges made. The court examined the statements of key witnesses and found significant contradictions. For instance, the statement of Jiwan Dass did not support the charge of manipulation, and the evidence of the handwriting expert was inconclusive due to the expert's unavailability for cross-examination. Judgment: The Supreme Court found that the charges were vague, the evidence was insufficient, and the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The High Court's decision to uphold the termination was set aside. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was entitled to costs, remuneration, and salary for the period of litigation. If the appellant had superannuated, he would be entitled to pensionary relief; otherwise, he should be reinstated.
|
