1986 (5) TMI 267 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the impugned order of dismissal.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice due to non-supply of documents and witness statements.
3. Preliminary objection regarding the point not being raised before the High Court.
4. Refusal to supply copies of documents and statements.
5. Prejudice caused to the appellant due to non-supply of documents.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Impugned Order of Dismissal:
The primary issue is the validity of the impugned order of dismissal of the appellant, who was holding the post of Superintendent of Police, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh.

2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The scope of inquiry is restricted to whether the principles of natural justice were violated by the respondents by refusing to supply to the appellant:
- Copies of the statements of witnesses examined at the preliminary inquiry stage.
- Copies of the documents relied upon by the disciplinary authority to establish charges against the appellant.

3. Preliminary Objection:
The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the point regarding the failure to supply documents and statements was not raised before the High Court. However, this objection was overruled because:
- The appellant's affidavit indicated that the point was argued before the High Court.
- The special leave granted by the Supreme Court was restricted to this specific point.

4. Refusal to Supply Copies of Documents and Statements:
The appellant had requested copies of documents and witness statements, which were refused by the disciplinary authority. The appellant was only allowed to inspect the documents and take notes without the assistance of a stenographer. This refusal persisted throughout the departmental proceedings, where 38 witnesses were examined, and 112 documents were produced.

5. Prejudice Caused to the Appellant:
The refusal to supply copies of documents and statements resulted in prejudice to the appellant. The appellant needed these documents to effectively prepare his defense, cross-examine witnesses, and rebut the charges. The Supreme Court found that the appellant was denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, which is a violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the impugned order of dismissal is null and void due to the denial of reasonable opportunity to the appellant. The judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the order of dismissal dated 10.11.1967 was quashed. The appellant was declared to have continued in service until his superannuation on January 31, 1983. The State Government was directed not to hold a fresh inquiry against the appellant on the charges in question. The appeal was allowed with costs throughout.