9911796707
TMI Blog1957 (9) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Punjab in an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution setting aside an order dated September 16, 1954, dismissing the respondent herein, from Government service on the ground that it was in contravention of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution. The respondent was, at the material dates, an Assistant Controller in the Commerce Department of the Union Government. Sometime in the middle of March, 1953, one Shri Bhan, a representative of a Calcutta firm styled Messrs. Gattulal Chhaganlal Joshi, came to Delhi with a view to get the name of the firm removed from black list in which it had been placed, and for that purpose, he was contacting the officers in the Department. Information was given to Sri Tawakley an assistant in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Complaints Branch), that Sri Bhan was offering to give bribe for getting an order in his favour. He immediately reported the matter to the Special Police Establishment, and they decided to lay a trap for him. Sri Bhan, however, was willing to pay the bribe only after an order in his favour had been made and communicated, but he offered that he would get the respondent to stand as surety for payment by him. The police ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the hearing was concluded on April 27, 1953. On July 28,1953, Mr. Byrne submitted his report, and therein, he found that the charges against the respondent had been clearly established. On this, a communication was issued to the respondent on August 29, 1953, wherein he was informed that it was provisionally decided that he should be dismissed, and asked to show cause against the proposed action. Along with the notice, the whole of the report of Mr. Byrne, omitting his recommendations, was sent. Oil September 11, 1953, the respondent sent his explanation. Therein, he again discussed at great length the evidence that had been adduced, and submitted that the finding of guilt was not proper, and that no action should be taken against him. He also complained in this explanation that the enquiry was vitiated by the fact that he had not been permitted to cross-examine. the witnesses, who gave evidence against him. The papers were then submitted to the Union Public Service Commission in accordance with Art. 320, and it sent its report on September 6, 1954, that the charges were made out, that there was no substance in the complaint of the respondent that he was not allowed to cross ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etition. It is well-settled that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the special jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ. It is true that the existence of another remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court to issue a writ; but, as observed by this Court in Raghid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana ([1950] S.C.R. 560), " the existence of an adequate legal remedy is a thing to be taken into consideration in the matter of granting writs ". Vide also K. S. Rashid and Son v. The Income-tax Investigation Commission And where such remedy exists, it will be a sound exercise of discretion to refuse to interfere in a petition under Art. 226, unless there are good grounds therefor. None such appears in the present case. On the other hand, the point for determination in this petition whether the respondent was denied a reasonable opportunity to present his case, turns mainly on the question whether he was prevented from crossexamining the witnesses, who gave evidence in support of the charge. That is a question on which there is a serious dispute, which cannot be satisfa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epted. When there is a dispute as to what happened before a court or tribunal, the statement of the Presiding Officer in regard to it is generally taken to be correct, and there is no reason why the statement of Mr. Byrne should not be accepted as true. He was admittedly an officer holding a high position, and it is not suggested that there was any motive for him to give false evidence. There are moreover, features in the record, which clearly show that the statement of Mr. Byrne must be correct. The examination of witnesses began on April 20,1953, and four witnesses were examined on that date, among them being Sri C. B. Tawakley. If, as stated by the respondent, he asked for permission to crossexamine witnesses, and that was refused, it is surprising that he should not have put the complaint in writing on the subsequent dates on which the enquiry was continued. To one of the witnesses, Sri. P. Govindan Nair, he did actually put a question in cross-examination, and it is difficult to reconcile this with his statement that permission had been refused to cross-examine the previous witnesses. A reading of the deposition of the witnesses shows that the Enquiring Officer himself had put ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue that the evidence of the respondent and his witnesses was not taken in the mode prescribed in the Evidence Act; but that Act has no application to enquiries conducted by tribunals, even though they may be judicial in character. The law requires that such tribunals should observe rules of natural justice in the conduct of the enquiry, and if they do so, their decision is not liable to be impeached on the ground that the procedure followed was not in accordance with that, which obtains in a Court of law. Stating it broadly and without intending it to be exhaustive, it may be observed that rules of natural justice require that a party should have the opportunity of adducing all relevant evidence on which he relies, that the evidence of the opponent should be taken in his presence, and that he should be given the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined by that party, and that no materials should be relied on against him without his being given an opportunity of explaining them. If these rules are satisfied, the enquiry is not open to attack on the ground that the procedure laid down in the Evidence Act for taking evidence was not strictly followed. Vide the recent deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
