An enquiry against a government servant must be conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice, including the right to a fair hearing and the opportunity to lead a defence.

Headnote:
NATURAL JUSTICE - ENQUIRY AGAINST GOVERNMENT SERVANT - OPPORTUNITY TO LEAD DEFENCE - CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES, 1930, R. 55(1), (3).
Fact of the Case:

The respondent, a temporary Sales-tax Officer, was subjected to an enquiry under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, on charges of misconduct, including accepting bribes and showing favours. The enquiry officer did not examine the witnesses afresh, but their previous statements, recorded at an earlier enquiry, were tendered in evidence and the respondent was asked to cross-examine them. The respondent was not allowed to lead his defence or to examine himself, despite repeated requests.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the enquiry was vitiated by the denial of a fair opportunity to the respondent to lead his defence. The Court found that the enquiry officer was to blame for this omission, as he had repeatedly stated that the respondent would be afforded an opportunity to lead his defence, but failed to fix a date for the examination of the defence witnesses.
Issues: 1. Whether the enquiry against the respondent was governed by Rule 55(1) or (3) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930? 2. Whether the respondent was afforded an adequate opportunity to lead his defence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the enquiry was governed by Rule 55(1) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, as the charges against the respondent were of a criminal nature and not merely specific faults in the execution of his duties. 2. The Court held that the respondent was not afforded an adequate opportunity to lead his defence, as the enquiry officer failed to fix a date for the examination of the defence witnesses, despite repeated requests from the respondent.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and upheld the order of the High Court quashing the order of dismissal passed against the respondent.

Judgement

HIDAYATULLAH, J.: This is an appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the Judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad, October 24, 1962, confirming in special appeal the decision of a learned Single Judge dated July 10, 1962. By the order the High Court has set aside the order of dismissal made by the State Government against the respondent C. S. Sharma on the ground that he did not have a fair enquiry before the Commissioner of Sales-tax when certain charges against him were inquired into.

2. The facts of the case are as follows. The respondent C. S. Sharma was appointed as a Sales-tax Officer in January 1949 and was transferred on April 1, 1950 to Hathras where he remained tin the end of September 1952. An enquiry was made with reference to certain allegations against him during hi period of stay at Hathras. On October 3, 1952, he was transferred to Lakhampur Kheri and was ordered not to visit Hathras until allowed by the authorities. It appears that in November 1952, an ex parte inquiry was made by the Assistant Commissioner and the proceedings were submitted with a preliminary report to the Commissioner. On the basis of this report an order of suspension was passed against him on February 18, 1953 and he was placed for inquiry before the Commissioner A set of charges was delivered to him on April 15, 1953; then a supplementary charge-sheet was issued on July 8, 1953. Sharma asked for the inspection of the record of the preliminary inquiry as also the report, but he was asked to submit his explanation to the charges first before inspection could be allowed. He submitted his explanation and m compliance with the directions contained in the charge-sheet issued to him, he submitted a list of three defence witnesses whom he wished to examine in support of his case. He requested that the witnesses against him should be examined vivavoce in his presence before be was asked to meet that evidence and also wished to be heard in person. On October 31, 1953, Sharma submitted the list of witnesses abovementioned. On the same day the Commissioner informed Sharma that he would be permitted to produce the witnesses mentioned in his letter in due course. In another communication he was told that another data would be fixed for hearing the witnesses in his defence. It is not necessary to describe the charges here because many of then though found against him by the Commissioner, were not accepted by the State Government. The order of dismissal was base upon three allegations which are allegation No. 5 in charge No. 1 and allegations Nos.1 and 3 in charges Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. The Commissioner in his report found him guilty of these charges and also of other a legations which the State Government did not accept. We shall refer to these charge presently after completing the narration a events which took place before the Enquiring Officer.

3. After the inquiry opened, the Commissioner did not examine the witnesses afresh, but their previous statements, recorded at the earlier enquiry, were tendered in evidence and Sharma was asked to cross-examine them. Sharma duly cross-examined those witnesses and then the question arose whether he would be allowed to lead his defence or not. In the first application which he had made giving the list of witnesses ho had named three witnesses and had also added that they were to be examined in relation to a specific charge about a car owned by him. On February 2, 1954, he made an application for 20 days extension of time for giving the list of witnesses he wished to examine in his defence. Third February hat been fixed for summoning of the witnesses against him but no date till then was fixed for the examination of his defence witnesses. His application of February 2, 1954 was rejected by the Commissioner on February 6 1954, without fixing a date for the examination of the witnesses or for giving him an opportunity to give evidence on his own behalf. Not knowing that he would not be gi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document