1976 (4) TMI 224 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of permission to visit Germany for defense preparation.
2. Non-provision of relevant documents for inspection.
3. Lack of adequate and reasonable opportunity for defense.
4. Malicious false accusation by Gottwald.
5. Bias of the Chairman of the Board of Enquiry.
6. Adverse interest of S. N. Hussain against the appellant.
7. Denial of services of a professional lawyer and a preferred Railway officer for defense.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Denial of Permission to Visit Germany
The appellant claimed that he was not allowed to visit Germany to collect essential information for his defense, which was a violation of natural justice and Article 311 of the Constitution. The court reviewed the correspondence between the appellant and the Chairman of the Board of Enquiry and concluded that it was unnecessary for the appellant to visit Germany for his defense preparation. The Board provided ample opportunities for the appellant to participate in the enquiry in Germany, but the appellant adopted a non-cooperative attitude, which the court found to be an attempt to create grounds for attacking the departmental enquiry.

Issue 2: Non-Provision of Relevant Documents
The appellant argued that he was not provided with certain necessary documents. The court, agreeing with the High Court, held that all relevant documents were made available to the appellant either for inspection or as copies. The appellant's claims for additional documents were found to be unfounded and aimed at delaying the enquiry.

Issue 3: Lack of Adequate and Reasonable Opportunity
The appellant contended that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The court reviewed the extensive correspondence and the Board's efforts to conduct the enquiry fairly. It found that the appellant consistently adopted delaying tactics and refused to participate in the enquiry, thus rejecting this submission as devoid of substance.

Issue 4: Malicious False Accusation by Gottwald
The appellant claimed that Gottwald's accusations were malicious and aimed at avoiding liquidated damages. The court rejected this argument, stating that Gottwald had nothing to gain and only to lose by falsely accusing the appellant. The court found no evidence that the claim for liquidated damages was given up due to the findings against the appellant.

Issue 5: Bias of the Chairman of the Board of Enquiry
The appellant alleged that the Chairman, M. A. Hussain, was biased against him. The court found no substantiation for this claim. The appellant's argument that Hussain had formed an opinion against him in 1958 was not supported by evidence. The court noted that the appellant did not object to Hussain's presence on the Board until after the enquiry concluded unfavorably for him.

Issue 6: Adverse Interest of S. N. Hussain
The appellant argued that S. N. Hussain was inimically disposed towards him. The court found no evidence of animus or adverse interest. It concluded that S. N. Hussain's actions were in the natural course of events and not motivated by personal bias.

Issue 7: Denial of Services of a Professional Lawyer and Preferred Railway Officer
The appellant was denied the services of a professional lawyer and a preferred Railway officer from India for his defense. The court referred to Rule 1730 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, which prohibits the engagement of professional lawyers in departmental enquiries. The court found that the appellant was given a wide field of choice for his defense counsel and that the nature of the accusations did not require special expertise. The court concluded that no principle of natural justice was violated in this regard.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's contentions. The appellant's non-cooperative attitude and unfounded claims were seen as attempts to avoid the consequences of the enquiry. The judgment of the High Court was upheld, and the appellant's dismissal from service was maintained.