1. Police officer dismissed following inquiry where previous witness statements were read and witnesses cross-examined under police manual rules — challenge to validity of dismissal. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1962 Supreme(SC) 212
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
3rd May, 1962.
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND T.L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR, JJ.
State of Mysore and others, Appellants
Versus
Shivabasappa Shivappa Makapur, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 400 of 1960.
Advocates appeared
Mr. H. N. Sanyal, Addl. Solicitor-General, (M/s. R. Gopalakrishnan and P. D. Menon, Advocates, with him), for Appellants; Mr. K. R. Chaudhuri, Advocate, for Respondent.
Advocates:
H.N.SANYAL, K.R.CHAUDHARY, P.D.MENON, R.GOPAL KRISHNAN
H.N.SANYAL, K.R.CHAUDHARY, P.D.MENON, R.GOPAL KRISHNAN
Quasi-judicial tribunals are not bound by strict rules of evidence. Natural justice is satisfied if a party is given a fair opportunity to contradict evidence, including prior witness statements, provided the witnesses are recalled and cross-examined.
Headnote:(A) Police Manual - Section 545(8) - Rules of Natural Justice - Quasi-judicial proceedings - Admissibility of prior statements of witnesses - Whether the procedure of reading out previous statements and allowing cross-examination satisfies the requirements of natural justice - Quasi-judicial tribunals are not bound by strict rules of evidence or court procedures; their primary obligation is to act fairly and provide the party against whom information is used a fair opportunity to explain it (Para 3) - Natural justice is a matter of substance, not form; it is sufficiently complied with when previous statements are read over to witnesses, copies are provided to the person charged, and an opportunity for cross-examination is given (Para 6).
(B) Revision - Power to enhance punishment - Whether an appellate authority in exercise of revisional powers is entitled to enhance the punishment imposed by the inquiry officer (Para 10).
Facts of the case:
A police officer was subjected to a departmental inquiry. The inquiry officer recalled witnesses from a preliminary investigation, read their previous statements on record, and allowed the officer to cross-examine them in detail. The officer was initially given a minor penalty of pay reduction. However, upon appeal, the appellate authority exercised revisional powers to enhance the punishment to dismissal from service. The High Court set aside the dismissal, ruling that the procedure of using prior statements without independent examination violated the rules of natural justice and that the relevant provision of the Police Manual was bad.
Findings of Court:
The procedure of admitting prior statements, provided the witnesses are recalled, the statements are put to them, and the party is allowed to cross-examine them, does not violate the rules of natural justice. The relevant provision of the Police Manual is valid and not in contravention of natural justice.
Issues: Whether the procedure of admitting statements of witnesses recorded during a preliminary investigation, provided they are put to the witnesses and the accused is given an opportunity to cross-examine them, is opposed to the rules of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: Quasi-judicial bodies are not bound by the strict rules of evidence applicable to courts. The core requirement of natural justice is that the party must be aware of the evidence against them and have a fair opportunity to contradict it. This is achieved when prior statements are read to the witnesses and the party is permitted to cross-examine them; requiring a word-for-word repetition of previous statements would be an insistence on bare technicalities.
Result: Order in appeal set aside and case remanded.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the admission of prior witness statements without independent fresh examination violates principles of natural justice and renders the inquiry and subsequent dismissal order void. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Quasi-judicial tribunals are not bound by strict rules of evidence; natural justice is satisfied if the party has a fair opportunity to explain and cross-examine evidence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 9 )
4. Natural justice is complied with when previous witness statements are read over, admitted, and the party charged is given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. (Para 6 , 9 )
5. Order of dismissal upheld regarding natural justice; case remanded to High Court to determine the legality of enhancing punishment during revision. (Para 10 )
6. Are quasi-judicial tribunals bound by the strict rules of evidence used in courts?
No, quasi-judicial tribunals are not courts and are not bound by strict rules of evidence or court procedures. They can obtain material information from any source, provided the party against whom the information is used is given a fair opportunity to explain it. (Para 3 )
7. Does the principle of natural justice require that all witness evidence be recorded for the first time in the presence of the accused?
No. Natural justice is a matter of substance, not form. It is sufficiently complied with if previous statements are read over to witnesses, copies are provided to the accused, and the accused is given a fair opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. (Para 6 , 9 )
8. When does the admission of prior witness statements violate the principles of natural justice in a departmental inquiry?
It violates natural justice if the prior statements are brought on record but are not put to the witnesses present, and copies of those statements are not provided to the person charged. (Para 7 )
Judgment:
VENKATARAMA AIYAR, J. : This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Mysore in a Writ Petition filed by respondent challenging the validity of an order of dismissal dated July 5, 1956 made by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Belgaum. The respondent entered service in the Police Department as a constable in the District of Dharwar in 1940 and was at the material dates a sub-inspector of Police. On a complaint preferred by one Machwe of Kurdiwadi against him, Mr. Majumdar, Inspector, C. I. D. made a preliminary investigation, examined a number of witnesses and recorded their statements, and submitted his report recommending further action. On that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Belgaum, started proceedings against the respondent, framed six charges against him, and called for his explanation. The respondent denied the charges, and then a regular inquiry was held on November 4, 1954. Clause (8) of S. 545 of the BOMBAY POLICE MANUAL which lays down the procedure to be followed in such inquiries is as follows :
"The officer conducting the inquiry should then recall all necessary witnesses in support of the charge and, in the defaulter s presence, read out any statements they may have made in the preliminary inquiry and record, if necessary, any further statements they may have to make. He should then give the defaulter an opportunity of cross-examining each witness after his statement in support of the charge is completed, any such cross-examination being recorded below the statement of the witness concerned."
In accordance with this provision the Deputy Superintendent recalled the witnesses who had been examined by Mr. Majumdar during the preliminary investigation, brought on record the previous statements given by them, and after putting a few questions to them tendered them for cross-examination by the respondent. As a fact all the witnesses were cross-examined by the respondent in great detail. The Deputy Superintendent held that all the charges framed against the respondent had been proved and he accordingly issued on December 14, 1954 a notice to him to show cause why he should not be punished by his pay being reduced from Rs. 125 to Rs. 120 per month for two years. To this again the respondent submitted his explanation and thereafter the Deputy Superintendent passed on January 5, 1955 an order reducing his pay as aforesaid.
2. The respondent would have been well advised to have left the matter there. But he chose to prefer an appeal against the order. The Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Belgaum, before whom it came, not only dismissed it but issued in exercise of his powers in revision, a notice to the respondent to show cause why he should not be removed from service and after taking his explanation ordered his dismissal on July 5, 1956. The respondent filed a revision against this order to the Government of Bombay and under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 that came before the Government of Mysore and was dismissed on August 31, 1957. The respondent thereupon filed in the High Court of Mysore, the Writ Petition out of which the present appeal arises, questioning the validity of the order of dismissal dated July, 5, 1956 on a number of grounds of which we are concerned in this appeal with only one, namely, that the inquiry be the Deputy Superintendent of Police was conducted in disregard of the rules of natural justice and in consequence the order made was bad. The learned Judges of the High Court agreed with this contention. They held, on the authority of certain observations made by this Court in Union of India v. T. R. Varma , 1958 SCR 499: and by the Bombay High Court in State of Bombay v. Gajanan Mahadev , ILR (1954) Bom 915: that principles of natural justice required that the evidence of witnesses in support of the charges should be recorded in the presence of the enquiring officer and of the person against whom it is sought to be used. In this view they h
