Back
Supreme Court Of India
Union of India
Versus
T. R. Varna
Decided On : September 18, 1957
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 311(2) - ENQUIRY BEFORE DISMISSAL - OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES - RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, NOT APPLICABLE TO ENQUIRIES BY TRIBUNALS - PROCEDURE FOLLOWED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - ENQUIRY NOT DEFECTIVE.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, an Assistant Controller in the Commerce Department of the Union Government, was dismissed from service on the ground that he had aided and abetted in offering illegal gratification to a government official and attempting to induce him to accept the gratification. The respondent challenged the order of dismissal on the ground that he was denied an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses at the enquiry held against him, and that the enquiry was therefore defective.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the respondent was not denied an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses at the enquiry, and that the enquiry was not defective. The Court also held that the Evidence Act, 1872, does not apply to enquiries conducted by tribunals, and that the procedure followed in the enquiry was in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent was denied an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses at the enquiry held against him. 2. Whether the enquiry was defective. 3. Whether the Evidence Act, 1872, applies to enquiries conducted by tribunals.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the respondent was not denied an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses at the enquiry, as he was asked by the Enquiring Officer at the end of each examination whether he had any questions to put. The Court also noted that the respondent only put questions to one witness and did not cross-examine the others. 2. The Court held that the enquiry was not defective, as the witnesses were examined at great length and spoke to all relevant facts, and the respondent had full opportunity to place his evidence before the Enquiring Officer. 3. The Court held that the Evidence Act, 1872, does not apply to enquiries conducted by tribunals, and that the procedure followed in the enquiry was in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Court below, and dismissed the writ application.
Judgment
VENKATARAMA AIYAR, J.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab in an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution setting aside an order dated 16/09/1954, dismissing the respondent herein, from Government service on the ground that it was in contravention of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution.
( 2 ) THE respondent was, at the material dates, an Assistant Controller in the Commerce Department of the Union Government. Sometime in the middle of March, 1953, one Shri Bhan, a representative of a Calcutta firm styled Messrs. Gattulal Chhaganlal Joshi came to Delhi with a view to get the name of the firm removed from black list in which it had been placed, and for that purpose, he was contacting the officers in the Department. INFORMATION was given to Sri Tawakley an assistant in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Complaints Branch), that Sri Bhan was offering to give bribe for getting an order in his favour. He immediately reported the matter to the special Police Establishment and they decided to lay a trap for him. Sri Bhan, however, was willing to pay the bribe only after order in his favour had been made and communicated, but he offered that he would get the respondent to stand as surety for payment by him. THE police thereafter decided to set a trap for the respondent and it was accordingly arranged that Sri Tawakley should meet, by appointment, Sri Bhan and the respondent in the Kwality Restaurant in the evening on 24/03/1953. The meeting took place as arranged, and three members of the Special Police Establishment were present there incognito. THEN, there was a talk between Sri Tawakley, Sri Bhan and the respondent and it is the case of the appellant that during that talk, an assurance was given by the respondent to Sri Tawakley that the amount would be paid by Sri Bhan. After the conversation was over, when the respondent was about to depart, one of the officers, the Superintendent of Police; disclosed his identity, got from the respondent his identity card and initialled it, and Sri Bhan also initialled it.
( 3 ) ON 26/03/1953 the respondent received a notice from the Secretary to the Ministry of Commerce and Industry charging him with aiding and abetting Sri Bhan in offering illegal gratification to Sri Tawakley and attempting to induce Sri Tawakley to accept the gratification offered by Sri Bhan, and in support of the charges, there were detailed allegations relating to meetings between the respondent and Sri Tawakley on 17/03/1958. On Ma 21/03/1953, a telephonic conversation with reference to the same matter later on that day, and the meeting in the Kwality Restaurant already mentioned. THE respondent was called upon to give his explanation to the charges, and he was directed to state whether he wished to lead oral or documentary evidence in defence. The enquiry was delegated to Mr. J. Byrne, Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. On 10/04/1953, the respondent submitted a detail explanation denying that he met Sri Tawakley either on the 17th or on the 21st March, or that there was any telephonic conversation that day with him, and stating that the conversation which he had in the Kwality Restaurant on the 24th related to an insurance policy of his and had nothing to do with any bribe proposed to be offered by Sri Bhan. THE respondent also asked for an oral enquiry and desired to examine Sri Bhan, Sri Feteh Singh and Sri Jai Narayan in support of his version. On 17/04/1953 Mr. Byrne gave notice to the respondent that there would be an oral enquiry, and pursuant thereto witnesses were examined on 20/04/1953, and the following days, and the hearing was concluded on 27/04/1953.
( 4 ) ON 28/07/1953, Mr. Byrne submitted his report, and therein, he found that the charges against the respondent had been clearly established. On this, a communication was issued to the respondent on 29/08/1953, wherein he was informed that it was provisionally decided tha
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
