Back
E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 2179 (N) of 1972. D/-2-5-1986.
Sawai Singh, Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Respondent.
Employment and Service - Order of termination – Certificate - Special leave - Appellant was an employee of Government and was appointed as returning officer to conduct Panchayat elections at in district held in the month of December - At that time the appellant was working as Superintendent Sheep & Wool - Election was to take place on December and for submission of nomination forms was December - Four persons filed their nomination forms - Nomination paper filed by was alleged to have been found incomplete and it was therefore rejected - Held, Application of those principles of natural justice must always be in conformity with scheme of the Act an subject matter of case - It is not possible to lay down any rigid rules as to which principle of natural justice is to be applied - There is no such thing as technical natural justice - Requirements of natural justice depend upon of case nature of enquiry rules under which the Tribunal is acting subject matter to be dealt with and so on - Concept of fair play in action which is basis of natural justice must depend upon particular list between parties - See State Bank of India SCC Rules and practices are constantly developing to ensure fairness in making of decisions which affect people in their daily lives and livelihood - Without such fairness democratic governments cannot exist - Beyond all rules and procedures that is the sine qua non - Appeal allowed
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The appellant, an employee of the Rajasthan Government, was appointed as a returning officer for Panchayat elections and was working as Superintendent of Sheep & Wool at the time of the incident (!) (!) .
A nomination paper filed by a candidate was rejected on the grounds of incompleteness, which included missing or improperly filled details such as ward number, office designation, and candidate’s proposal (!) (!) (!) .
The government initiated departmental proceedings against the appellant, alleging that he manipulated the withdrawal of a candidate and committed forgery by erasing a word on a nomination paper, thereby showing undue favor to another candidate (!) (!) (!) .
The appellant denied the charges, and the departmental enquiry’s findings were based on evidence that was inconsistent and lacked proper corroboration, particularly regarding the alleged forgery and manipulation (!) (!) .
The evidence presented, including the testimony of witnesses and handwriting experts, was found to be contradictory and insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant’s participation in the enquiry did not absolve the department from the obligation to present clear and cogent evidence (!) (!) .
The charges were considered vague and not clearly articulated, making it difficult for the appellant to effectively defend himself. The enquiry process did not adhere to the principles of natural justice, especially given the absence of cross-examination opportunities for crucial evidence like handwriting analysis (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that natural justice principles depend on the context, the nature of the enquiry, and the subject matter, rather than rigid rules. The failure to properly examine evidence and the lack of fairness in the proceedings warranted setting aside the departmental order (!) (!) .
The appellate court found that the departmental enquiry and subsequent departmental actions were flawed, and the findings of guilt could not be sustained. The High Court’s dismissal of the appellant’s writ petition was also considered in error (!) .
Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant was entitled to reinstatement or, if retired, to his full salary and pensionary benefits, considering the procedural deficiencies and the flawed enquiry process (!) (!) (!) .
The decision underscores the importance of fairness, clarity in charges, and adherence to natural justice principles in disciplinary proceedings affecting employment rights (!) (!) .
Would you like a detailed legal analysis or specific advice based on these key points?
Judgement
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.:- This is an appeal by special leave granted by this Court against the order dated 7th April, 1972 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, at Jodhpur, in Special Appeal No. 74 of 1972. The High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur in the said appeal refused to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge of that High Court, the learned single Judge had dismissed the writ petition of the appellant challenging the order of termination of his services.
2. The appellant was an employee of the Rajasthan Government and was appointed as returning officer to conduct Panchayat elections at Sardi in Panchayat Samiti Ladnun in the district of Nagaur held in the month of December, 1960. At that time, the appellant was working as Superintendent, Sheep & Wool, Nagaur. The election was to take place on 26th December, 1960 and the date for submission of nomination forms was 25th December, 1960. Four persons, namely, Shri Chaturbhuj, Shri Puma Ram, Shri Jiwan Ram and Shri Jiwan Dass filed their nomination forms. The nomination paper filed by Shri Chaturbhuj was alleged to have been found incomplete and it was, therefore, rejected. The nomination paper was said to be defective for the following reasons -
(i) In the opening line the Ward Number was not filled in and the space provided therefor was left blank;
(ii) In the second line out of the words Panch / Sarpanch one of the two was not struck out-, so that there was no indication whether the nomination was for the office of Panch or that of Sarpanch.
(iii) In the third line in the blank space again intended to specify the office, the said Chaturbhuj had filled in his own name thus instead of stating that he was proposing himself as candidate for the office of Panch or Sarpanch; it was found that he was proposing himself as Chaturbhuj.
(iv) At the end of sub-paragraph (1) containing a declaration by the candidate as to his qualifications the said Chaturbhuj did not strike off one of the two words Panch / Sarpanch.
3. In view of the above, the nomination paper was rejected. Shri Jiwan Dass and Shri Jiwan Ram withdrew their candidature and Shri Purna Ram was left alone in the field and was, therefore, elected to the office of Sarpanch.
4. On the 2nd July, 1965, the Government of Rajasthan informed the appellant that an enquiry was Proposed to be held against him on charge which was as follows :
"That the said Shri Sawai Singh, while functioning as District Sheep & Wool Officer, Nagaur, during the year 1960 was appointed as Returning Officer to conduct Panchayat Election at Sardi in Panchayat Samiti Ladnun in the month of December, 1960. That the said Shri Sawai Singh showed undue favour to one of the contesting candidates Shri Purna Ram. He manipulated the withdrawal of Shri Jeewan Dass a dummy candidate of Shri Chaturbhuj who was contesting candidate against Shri Puma Ram. The said Shri Sawai Singh committed forgery by effecting erasion in the word "panch" on the nomination paper of Shri Chatur Bhuj and malafidely and improperly rejected his nomination form."
5. The statement of allegations was also sent along with the forwarding letter and it was mentioned in the said statement as follows :
"4. Shri Sawai Singh manipulated the withdrawal of Shri Jeevan Dass a dummy candidate of Chaturbhuj by cheating.
5. He further committed forgery by effecting erasion in the word panch on the nomination paper of Shri Chatur Bhuj and malafidely and improperly rejected the nomination form of Chaturbhuj and thereby acted in furtherance of the prospects of the election of Shri Purna Ram as Sarpanch Sardi."
6. A reply to the said charge-sheet was submitted by the appellant. He denied the charges levelled against him. By an order dated 4th November, 1965, the Government appointed the Additional Commissioner for departmental. enquiry, Rajasthan, Jaipur as an Enquiry Officer to hold the enquiry against the appellant. The Enquiry officer submitted his report on 27th March, 1967. Perusal of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
