1. Service termination challenged on grounds of denial of reasonable opportunity in disciplinary enquiry — violation of natural justice. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2001 Supreme(SC) 168
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N.Agrawal : G.B.Pattanaik
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation
Versus
Lachhman Dass Gupta
Case No. : 803 of 1998
Date of Decision : 1/31/01
A departmental enquiry is vitiated and the resulting punishment order is invalid if the delinquent is denied a reasonable opportunity to defend, specifically by not being supplied with the documents relied upon by the department to establish the charges.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Departmental Enquiry - Principles of Natural Justice - Reasonable Opportunity - Non-supply of documents - Where documents relied upon by the enquiry officer to establish charges are not supplied to the delinquent, no reasonable opportunity to defend the case is afforded - Such violation of natural justice vitiates the order of punishment inflicted upon the employee. (Paras 2 and 3)
Facts of the case:
A suit for declaration was filed by an employee challenging a termination order on the ground that no due opportunity was provided to defend the case during the enquiry, resulting in a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The Trial Judge dismissed the suit, holding the termination order to be legal. However, the lower Appellate Court reversed this decision, concluding that the non-supply of documents relied upon by the enquiry officer denied the employee a reasonable opportunity to defend. The High Court subsequently affirmed this conclusion in a second appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court found that if documents relied upon by the department in establishing the charges have not been provided to the delinquent, it is irresistible that the delinquent was denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the proceeding.
Issues: Whether the failure to supply documents relied upon by the enquiry officer during a departmental enquiry constitutes a denial of reasonable opportunity, thereby vitiating the resulting order of termination.
Ratio Decidendi: The denial of a reasonable opportunity to defend, specifically through the non-supply of documents used by the department to establish charges, vitiates the order of termination passed by the competent authority.
Result: Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiff contended no opportunity to defend and documents not supplied. Defendant denied allegations and upheld termination validity. (Para 2 )
3. Documents relied upon by department not given to delinquent, thus denial of reasonable opportunity to defend. Enquiry vitiated. (Para 3 )
4. Failure to supply documents relied upon in disciplinary enquiry constitutes denial of reasonable opportunity and vitiates the punishment order. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal dismissed — High Court judgment affirming lower appellate court's decree setting aside termination order upheld. (Para 3 )
6. Does non-supply of documents relied upon in a departmental enquiry violate principles of natural justice?
Yes, failure to supply documents relied upon by the department to the delinquent amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity to defend, vitiating the enquiry and punishment. (Para 3 )
(1) THE defendant is the appellant against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in RSA No. 3287 of 1996. When the case was called, there was none on behalf of the appellant. We, therefore, have perused the relevant judgment and orders with the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
(2) THE plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that the order of termination is vitiated and null and void on several grounds including the ground that no due opportunity having been given to the plaintiff to defend his case in course of the enquiry, there has been a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The defendant filed the written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. On the basis of the pleadings the learned Trial Judge framed 7 issues and on Issues 4, 5 and 6, which are the issues on merits, it came to hold against the plaintiff and recorded a finding that the impugned order dated March 15, 1989 is legal and valid and in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the service conditions of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not entitled to the declaration and injunction as prayed for. The Trial Judge having dismissed the suit, the plaintiff carried the matter in appeal. The Additional District Judge, Patiala, who was the lower Appellate Court, reappreciated the entire materials on record as well as the legal position and came to the conclusion that no reasonable opportunity can be held to have been afforded to the plaintiff when even the documents relied upon by the enquiry officer had not been supplied and such denial of reasonable opportunity vitiates the order of punishment inflicted upon the plaintiff. The lower Appellate Court, therefore, set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Judge and allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Against this judgment of the lower Appellate Court the employer Corporation approached the High Court in second appeal. The High Court in the second appeal reaffirmed the conclusion of the lower Appellate Court and came to hold that the enquiry is vitiated in not affording a reasonable opportunity to the plaintiff delinquent in the enquiry proceeding. It is against this judgment of the High Court, the present appeal has been preferred.
(3) WE have examined the judgment of the lower Appellate Court as well as the impugned judgment of the High Court. In view of the conclusion of the lower Appellate Court, that even the documents relied upon by the department in establishing the charge have not been given to the delinquent, the conclusion is irresistible that the delinquent had been denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the proceeding, and, therefore, the lower Appellate Court as well as the High Court are fully justified in setting aside the order of termination passed by the competent authority. We, therefore, do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court passed in the second appeal. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
