9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Violation of principles of natural justice in the conduct of the enquiry. Analysis: The appellant, a non-gazetted Government servant, was dismissed by the Chief Engineer following disciplinary proceedings. The first charge against him involved misconduct related to inflating measurements in the annual repairs of an embankment, causing a loss to the Government. The charges were proven by the Administrative Tribunal, recommending dismissal. The High Court dismissed a petition challenging the dismissal, citing violations of natural justice. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court on the same grounds. The appellant contended that the principles of natural justice were violated during the enquiry. It was argued that he was denied the right to present his evidence in defense and was not given inspection of material collected against him. The appellant claimed that the measurements were inflated due to natural causes like rain and floods, affecting the accuracy of the work done. He wanted to examine witnesses to support his defense, but the enquiring officer did not allow it, relying on a technical expert's opinion instead of the witnesses requested by the appellant. The Supreme Court analyzed the situation and the arguments presented. They considered whether the denial of the appellant's right to present evidence and the use of material gathered without his inspection constituted a violation of natural justice. The Court reviewed previous rulings on similar cases to determine the applicability of natural justice principles. The Court emphasized the importance of assessing the actual prejudice caused by the denial of specific rights in each case. In this case, the Court found that the appellant's right to present evidence was not significantly hindered, as he had the opportunity to use the material collected against him in his defense. The Court also noted that the case primarily revolved around the accuracy of measurements, and the arguments related to rain and floods were deemed irrelevant. The Court concluded that no substantial prejudice was caused to the appellant by the procedural aspects of the enquiry, and therefore, the principles of natural justice were not violated. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the principles of natural justice were not breached in the conduct of the enquiry. The appellant's arguments regarding the denial of rights and the use of material against him were deemed insufficient to overturn the dismissal order. No costs were awarded in the case.
|
