1996 (7) TMI 597 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Validity of charges
- Appointment of enquiry officer
- Non-furnishing of documents
- Jurisdiction of the Tribunal

Validity of Charges:
The respondent, a Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, was suspended pending an inquiry into grave charges. The Tribunal allowed the respondent's Original Application (O.A.) on four grounds, including that the charges were vague. However, the Supreme Court found that the charges were not vague upon perusing the memo of charges. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in considering the charges as vague and concluded that this ground was unsustainable both in law and on the facts of the case.

Appointment of Enquiry Officer:
The Tribunal also held that the appointment of the enquiry officer was illegal since the officer was a witness against the respondent. However, the Supreme Court clarified that this ground was based on a mistake regarding the identity of the appointed officer. The Court did not delve into this issue further as the respondent's counsel did not seek to support this ground. Therefore, the Court found this ground to be unsubstantiated.

Non-furnishing of Documents:
One of the grounds on which the Tribunal allowed the O.A. was the failure to supply documents requested by the respondent, which was deemed a violation of natural justice. The Supreme Court emphasized that the duty of the enquiry officer/disciplinary authority is to supply only relevant documents, not every document requested by the delinquent officer/employee. The Court highlighted that the respondent needed to demonstrate the relevance of each document requested and how their non-supply prejudiced his case. Since this analysis was lacking, the Court concluded that the Tribunal had not properly assessed whether the non-supply of documents had affected the respondent's case. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh disposal, focusing on this specific issue.

Jurisdiction of the Tribunal:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by delving into the truth of the charges and acting as an appellate authority over departmental decisions. The Court reiterated that the Tribunal's role is not to re-evaluate the charges but to ensure procedural fairness. As the Tribunal had not adequately assessed the impact of non-furnishing of documents on the respondent's case, the matter was sent back for rehearing, limiting the scope to the issue of document non-supply. The appeal was allowed, the previous order was set aside, and the case was remitted to the Tribunal for further proceedings in line with the Supreme Court's observations.