Judgment

SINGH, J. :- The short question which arises in this appeal is whether the disciplinary proceedings taken against the appellant resulting in his dismissal are null and void as the Enquiry Officer failed to comply with the principles of natural justice in holding the enquiry. The question relating to the noncompliance of principles of natural justice is founded on the grievance that a copy of paper No. 5 although mentioned in the memo of charges was not supplied to the appellant, and that he was not permitted to inspect the same. A learned single Judge of the High Court has answered the question against the appellant. Hence this appeal.

2. The appellant was posted as fireman at Moghulsarai in Northern Railway in May, 1964. On 28th May 1964 coal lying at Pusauli Station was fraudulently removed by some person giving out his name as Shambhu Tiwari. A criminal case was registered, but on account of absence of reliable evidence, a final report was submitted. It appears that during the preliminary enquiry held by the Department it was found that Chandrama Tewari, the appellant had removed the coal lying at Pusauli Station posing himself as Shambhu Tiwari, a coal contractor. On completion of the preliminary enquiry a charge-sheet was issued to the appellant on 6-2-1967. The appellant filed reply to the charges denying the same. An Enquiry Officer was appointed before whom evidence was recorded and the appellant was afforded full opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the appellant guilty of charges framed against him. The punishing authority accepted the enquiry report and issued orders on 27-6-1969 dismissing the appellant from the service. The appellant filed a civil suit in the trial Court for a declaration that the punishment of dismissal awarded to him was illegal and unconstitutional mainly on the ground that the enquiry had been held in violation of the principles of natural justice and he was denied reasonable opportunity of defence. A number of other grounds were also raised in the suit which need not be adverted as the controversy now is confined to the question of violation of the principles of natural justice alone. The trial court decreed the appellants suit on 31-1-1974. The decree of the trial court was confirmed in appeal by the District Judge by his order dt. 2-11-1974. On a second appeal being filed by the Union of India the High Court set aside the judgment and decree of the subordinate courts on the findings that the appellant had been afforded reasonable opportunity of defence and there was no violation of any principles of natural justice in the enquiry.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant Shri M. K. Ramamurthy contended that the memo of charges issued to the appellant expressly mentioned that paper No. 5 was proposed to be relied by the Department against the appellant but in spite of demand being made by the appellant a copy of that document was not supplied to him nor was he permitted to inspect the same. In the absence of that document the appellant was handicapped in cross-examining Shri A. C. Das, Dy. S. P., S.P.E. He further urged that failure to supply the copy of paper No. 5 was in violation of the principles of natural justice rendering the proceedings, resulting in the order of dismissal as void. He placed reliance on decisions of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chintaman AIR 1961 SC 1623,. Tirloknath v. Union of India, 1967 Serv LR 759, State of Assam v. Mahendra Kumar Das, (1971) 1 SCR87, State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram (1975) 2 SCR 370, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Sharif, AIR 1982 SC 937, and Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India, (1986) 3 SCC 229.

4. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and we have further considered the aforesaid authorities referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant but we do not find any merit in the appellants submissions to justify interferen