Back
Supreme Court Of India
TIRLOK NATH
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Decided On : November 1, 1960
PUBLIC SERVANT - REMOVAL FROM SERVICE - INQUIRY - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - VIOLATION - REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE - DOCUMENTS NOT FURNISHED - INQUIRY HELD IN VIOLATION OF ART. 311 (2) OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, was removed from service after an inquiry held under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930. The inquiry was based on allegations of misconduct, including making indecent overtures to a woman and outraging her modesty. The appellant challenged the order of removal, contending that the principles of natural justice were violated during the inquiry and that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Inquiry Officer failed to furnish the appellant with copies of the documents on which he proposed to rely, despite the appellant's request for the same. The Court found that this failure caused prejudice to the appellant in making his defense at the inquiry and that the inquiry was held in violation of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, and Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the Inquiry Officer violated the principles of natural justice by not furnishing the appellant with copies of the documents on which he proposed to rely? 2. Whether the inquiry was held in violation of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, and Article 311(2) of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Inquiry Officer's failure to furnish the appellant with copies of the documents on which he proposed to rely caused prejudice to the appellant in making his defense at the inquiry. The Court further held that the inquiry was held in violation of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, and Article 311(2) of the Constitution, which require that a public servant be given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the order of removal of the appellant from service and directed the respondent to pay the costs of the appeal to the appellant.
Judgment
MADHOLKAR,
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High court of Punjab dismissing in limn the appellants petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the Chief Commissioner of Delhi removing him from service.
( 2 ) THE appellant was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police in the North West Frontier Province on 1/01/1925, and was officiating as an Inspector of Police before the partition of India. After the partition he was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police at Delhi and was later promoted as Inspector of Police and subsequently as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Crime Branch.
( 3 ) CERTAIN criminal cases were investigated by the Delhi C. I. D. against a woman known as Dr. Vimla. The papers in connection with the investigation used to pass between the investigation officer and the Superintendent of Police through the appellant. It was alleged that on 4/03/1955, the appellant went to Dr. Vimlas office in Coandni Chowk and offered to help her in the cases against her. On March 11, he told her on telephone that she should meet him at the Delhi Railway Station at 5. 00 P. M. and asked her that she should come alone and that too not in her own car. Hi also told her that he would take her to some place and so she should leave word at her house that she would not return till 9. 00 P. M. Dr. Vimla immediately reported to the District Magistrate that the appellant was making overtures to her on the pretext that he would help her in the criminal cases pending against her Thereupon the District Magistrate asked her to telephone the appellant in his presence and in the presence of Shri M. L. Nanda, Senior Superintendent of Police. She did so and the telephone conversation between her and the appellant was tapped and recorded. Pursuant to the direction of the District Magistrate a trap was then laid for apprehending the appellant and Dr. Vimla at the place where the appellant had proposed to take Dr. Vimla.
( 4 ) THAT evening Dr. Vimla went to the railway station accordingly to the arrangement between her and the appellant and was picked up by the appellant in his car. He then took her to Shidipura, a locality in Karol Bagh and parked the car on the main road. Along with Dr. Vimla he went through a lane to a house situate therein. It may be mentioned that the appellants car will followed by two cars, in one of which was the Additional District Magistrate and in the other the Superintendent of Police. At about 8. 15 P. M. these persona knocked at the door of the house which was opened by the appellant and they asked him to allow them to make a search of the house. The appellant, was unwilling to allow the search without being shown a search warrant. The Additional District Magistrate thereupon prepared and signed the search warrant, and armed with that both the officers carried out the search of the house. They found Dr. Vimla in that house. The also noticed that the appellant and Dr. Vimla were having drinks The statement of Dr. Vimla was recorded by the Additional District Magistrate and therein she stated that after taking whisky the appellant made indecent overtures to her and outraged her modesty and because of this she cried out. The appellant was then questioned. He admitted that the house belonged to a friend of his and was in his temporary possession and said that Dr. Vimla was the wife of his friend. This fact was denied by Dr. Vimla. The appellant also said that he had no concern with the cases against Dr. Vimla but that she had been asking him to intercede in her behalf. He also said that one Jaswant Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon, had also recommended dr. Vimlas case to him. He further said that Dr. Vimla had rung him up that day, told him that Jaswant Singh was due to arrive from Gurgaon at 6. 30 P. M. and that he should come to the railway station. It was for this reason that he went to the railway station. Jaswant Singh did not however, arriv
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
