Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
ANIL KUMAR SINHA, A. N. BANERJEE
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTS - Appellant
Versus
N. C. MAJUMDAR - Respondent
First Miscellaneous Appeal No. 113 of 1972
Decided On : January 31, 1973
NATURAL JUSTICE - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING - CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES, 1957 - RULE 15 (5) - REFUSAL TO PERMIT ASSISTANCE OF LEGAL PRACTITIONER AND INSPECTION OF REPORT OF INVESTIGATING OFFICER - VIOLATION OF RULES AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an Assistant Engineer of Calcutta Telephones, was charge-sheeted for failure to maintain absolute integrity in the performance of his duty. Disciplinary proceeding was initiated, and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. Petitioner's request for assistance of a legal practitioner and inspection of the report of the Special Police Establishment was denied. The Enquiry Officer found the charges established, and the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the petitioner. Petitioner challenged the order in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the refusal to permit the petitioner to take the assistance of a legal practitioner and to inspect the report of the Investigating Officer violated the rules and principles of natural justice. The Court found that Rule 15 (5) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, made it obligatory for the Disciplinary Authority to consider all relevant circumstances before refusing permission to engage a legal practitioner. The Court also found that the Enquiring Officer had relied upon the report of the Investigating Officer, which influenced his consideration in concluding that the charges were established against the petitioner.
Issues: 1. Whether the refusal to permit the petitioner to take the assistance of a legal practitioner violated the rules and principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the refusal to permit the petitioner to inspect the report of the Investigating Officer violated the rules and principles of natural justice?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rule 15 (5) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, makes it obligatory for the Disciplinary Authority to consider all relevant circumstances before refusing permission to engage a legal practitioner. In this case, the Disciplinary Authority failed to consider the facts and circumstances of the case and refused permission to the petitioner to engage a legal practitioner simply because the case did not satisfy the first part of the Rule, namely, that there was no legal practitioner nominated by the authority for presentation of its own case. This was a clear breach of duty on the part of the Disciplinary Authority and violated the rules and principles of natural justice. 2. The Enquiring Officer relied upon the report of the Investigating Officer, which influenced his consideration in concluding that the charges were established against the petitioner. The petitioner was not given any opportunity to inspect this report, which resulted in violation of the rules and principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal and the cross-objection. The Court directed the appellant to pay costs to the appearing respondent, hearing fee being assessed at ten Gold Mohurs. The Court also directed that the respondent be restored to the position he would have been entitled to by now and allowed to join his office forthwith.
( 1 ) : This appeal is preferred by the Director General, Posts and Telegraphs, Union of India, and others against the judgment and order of P. K. Banerjee, J. passed in writ jurisdiction of this Court upon an application under Article 226 of the Constitution made by the respondents quashing the order of dismissal from his service. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows: -
( 2 ) THE petitioner, who was at the material time an Assistant Engineer of Calcutta Telephones, was charge-sheeted for his failure to maintain absolute integrity in the performance of his duty as required under Rule 3 of the Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1955. Substantially, the allegations were that there were alterations and interpolations in the sub-vouchers submitted along with certain bills, entries had not been made in case of few purchases of materials of contingent nature in the stock register while in some other cases delayed entries were made, details of cash memos were not entered in the accounts and the petitioner used three receipts for taxi-hire amounting to Rs. 4. 50 in order to drive undue financial advantage. Along with him another officer named G. C. Roy was also charge-sheeted for making wrong entries or delayed entries of the purchase in the relevant stock register with reference to cash memos or failure to give cash memos or to give certificate for those purposes. The disciplinary proceeding was started both against the petitioner and G. C. Roy with the issue of charge-sheet after the preliminary investigation made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Calcutta.
( 3 ) THE petitioner in reply to the charge showed cause denying all material allegations made in the statement of allegations annexed to the charge-sheet and one Mr. K. Thomas Kora was appointed the Enquiry Officer for an enquiry into the charges and for submission of his report to the Disciplinary Authority. In course of the proceeding the respondent made several representations before the Director General, Posts and Telegraphs, praying for assistance of a legal practitioner in the enquiry proceeding and also for inspection of the report of the Special Police Establishment. They refused both these prayers and these representations were rejected. In the enquiry proceeding, however, 25 witnesses were examined on behalf of the departmental Disciplinary Authority and two witnesses were examined by the respondent including the evidence of two experts on either side and a number of documents were exhibited in this case. The Enquiry Officer on consideration of evidence submitted his report holding, inter alia, that the charges made against the respondent were established. After giving a second opportunity to the respondent, the Disciplinary Authority, also on consideration of the report and all other evidence and materials dismissed the petitioner from his service.
( 4 ) THE petitioner preferred a departmental appeal which was also dismissed. The petitioner then moved this Court in its writ jurisdiction and obtained a rule, Banerjee, J. found that there was violation of the principles of natural justice on two points, namely, (i) the refusal to permit the petitioner to take the assistance of a legal practitioner and (ii) the refusal of the Disciplinary Authority to all inspection of the report of the Investigating Officer of the Special Police Establishment. As such, failures deprived the petitioner-respondent of reasonable opportunity to defend his case. The impugned order of dismissal was, accordingly, quashed and the rule was made absolute. That is how in short the appellant felt aggrieved and preferred the present appeal.
( 5 ) IN the appeal before us it is contended in the first place by Mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel for the appellant, that it was not right that the refusal to permit the petitioner to take assistance of a legal practitioner on the facts of this case resulted in violation of the rules and principles of natu
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
