1998 (12) TMI 627 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice during the departmental enquiry.
2. Lack of evidence to sustain the charge framed against the appellant.
3. Scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings.

Summary:

1. Violation of principles of natural justice during the departmental enquiry:
The appellant, a constable in the Delhi Police, was dismissed from service after a departmental enquiry. The appellant contended that the enquiry was held in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court observed that the enquiry did not adhere to the principles of natural justice as the complainants were not examined in the presence of the appellant, and their previous statements were brought on record without fulfilling the conditions u/r 16(3) of the Delhi Police (F&A) Rules, 1980. The Court emphasized that reasonable opportunity, as contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution, was not provided to the appellant.

2. Lack of evidence to sustain the charge framed against the appellant:
The charge against the appellant was that he kept Rs. 200 out of Rs. 1000 given by the factory owner for payment to laborers. The Court found that the key witness, Smt. Meena Mishra, denied making any payment to the appellant on the said date. Additionally, the complainants were not produced during the enquiry, and their previous statements were improperly admitted. The Court held that there was no evidence to support the charge, rendering the findings of the Enquiry Officer perverse.

3. Scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings:
The Court reiterated that while it does not sit in appeal over the findings of a departmental enquiry, it can interfere if the findings are perverse or not supported by any evidence. The Court found that the Enquiry Officer acted arbitrarily and with bias, failing to conduct an impartial enquiry. The findings were based on conjectures and surmises, and the non-production of complainants was wrongly attributed to the appellant.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal and quashing the dismissal order. The respondents were directed to reinstate the appellant with all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay, to be paid within three months. No order as to costs was made.