2010 (3) TMI 1071 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether action of the appellants resulting in respondent s dismissal from service rejection of appeal and further representation was in violation of the principles of natural justice?

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice in the departmental inquiry.
2. Adequacy of opportunity provided to the respondent during the inquiry.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and the Indian Evidence Act.
4. Validity of documentary evidence not properly proved.
5. Consequences of the respondent's retirement on the relief granted.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice in the Departmental Inquiry:
The court examined whether the departmental inquiry against the respondent adhered to the principles of natural justice. The respondent argued that he was not given adequate, proper, reasonable, and sufficient opportunity to defend himself during the inquiry, which vitiated the entire process. The trial court found that there was a complete violation of principles of natural justice, as the respondent was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his case. This finding was upheld by the appellate courts, including the Supreme Court.

2. Adequacy of Opportunity Provided to the Respondent During the Inquiry:
The appellants contended that the respondent was given sufficient opportunity but deliberately remained absent, leading to an ex-parte inquiry. However, the court noted that the respondent was not informed about the specific charges or the basis of the findings against him. The court emphasized that the respondent should have been given a copy of the inquiry report and a proper opportunity to respond to the charges. The court concluded that the inquiry was conducted in a callous manner, violating the respondent's right to a fair hearing.

3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under the CPC and the Indian Evidence Act:
The court scrutinized whether the appellants complied with procedural requirements under the CPC, particularly Order XII Rules 1 and 2, which pertain to the admission of documents. The appellants failed to serve a notice of admission or denial of documents on the respondent, as required by the CPC. The court highlighted that the documents filed by the appellants were not properly proved in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. The failure to comply with these procedural requirements significantly weakened the appellants' case.

4. Validity of Documentary Evidence Not Properly Proved:
The court emphasized that mere admission of documents in evidence does not amount to their proof. The appellants did not lead any oral evidence to support their documentary evidence. The court reiterated that documents must be proved by primary or secondary evidence as per the Indian Evidence Act. The appellants' failure to prove the documents in accordance with the law meant that these documents could not be relied upon to support their case.

5. Consequences of the Respondent's Retirement on the Relief Granted:
Given that the respondent had retired in the year 2000, the court noted that reinstatement was not a feasible remedy. Instead, the court focused on the monetary benefits due to the respondent. The court affirmed the trial court's decree, which quashed the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement with all consequential benefits, including payment of salary for the intervening period. However, due to the respondent's retirement, the relief was limited to monetary compensation.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' findings that the departmental inquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. The appellants' failure to comply with procedural requirements under the CPC and the Indian Evidence Act further weakened their case. The court also acknowledged the respondent's retirement, limiting the relief to monetary benefits. The appellants were ordered to bear the cost of litigation throughout, with counsel's fee fixed at Rs. 10,000.

← Previous Next →