1987 (11) TMI 380 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-compliance with principles of natural justice.
2. Denial of reasonable opportunity of defense.
3. Relevance and materiality of documents in disciplinary proceedings.

Summary:

1. Non-compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The primary issue in this appeal was whether the disciplinary proceedings resulting in the appellant's dismissal were null and void due to the Enquiry Officer's failure to comply with the principles of natural justice. The appellant contended that a copy of paper No. 5, mentioned in the memo of charges, was neither supplied to him nor was he permitted to inspect it. This, he argued, handicapped him in cross-examining a key witness, Shri A.C. Das, Dy. S.P., S.P.E. The High Court had previously ruled against the appellant, finding no violation of natural justice principles.

2. Denial of Reasonable Opportunity of Defense:
The appellant argued that the failure to supply the copy of paper No. 5 violated the principles of natural justice, rendering the dismissal proceedings void. He cited several precedents, including *State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chintaman*, *Trilokinath v. Union of India*, and *Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India*, to support his claim that the denial of relevant documents amounted to a denial of reasonable opportunity to defend himself.

3. Relevance and Materiality of Documents:
The Court examined whether the non-supplied document (paper No. 5) was material and relevant to the charges against the appellant. It was established that paper No. 5 was the report submitted by the Special Police Establishment regarding a criminal case of theft of coal, which had concluded with a final report. The Enquiry Officer did not consider or rely on this report in recording findings against the appellant. The Court held that only material and relevant documents need to be supplied to the delinquent officer. Since paper No. 5 was neither referred to nor relied upon by the Enquiry Officer, its non-supply did not prejudice the appellant or violate principles of natural justice.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, concluding that the disciplinary enquiry was conducted fairly and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The appellant's claim of being denied a reasonable opportunity of defense was found to be without merit. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.