Back
1970 Supreme(Del) 220
High Court Of Delhi
SURAT SINGH - Appellant
Versus
S.R.BAKSHI - Respondent
Civil 717 of 1969
Decided On : 10/05/1970
C.V.FRANCIS, Dipak Chaudhary, P.D.SHARMA, R.VASUDEVA PILLAI, S.P.AGARWAL
Government servants facing disciplinary proceedings have a right to inspect documents necessary for their defense, even if those documents are not relied upon by the Government. This right is conferred by Rule 14(11) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and is a part of the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice.
Headnote:
NATURAL JUSTICE - RIGHT TO A HEARING - INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS - CCS (CCA) RULES, 1965, R. 14(11) - GOVERNMENT SERVANTS - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - RIGHT TO INSPECT DOCUMENTS NECESSARY FOR DEFENSE - STAGE AT WHICH INSPECTION CAN BE SOUGHT - INTERPRETATION OF RULE 14(11) - RELEVANCE OF DOCUMENTS FOR DEFENSE - ORDER REFUSING INSPECTION - WHETHER CONTRAVENES RULE 14(11) OR AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM RULE - AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE REMEDY - EXERCISE OF DISCRETION TO ENTERTAIN WRIT PETITIONS.
Fact of the Case:
Four petitioners, Sorters in the Railway Mail Service, were suspended and served with charge sheets for refusing to dispose of mails. They requested to inspect certain documents for their defense, but the request was denied by the departmental officials. The petitioners challenged the refusal of inspection and the subsequent disciplinary proceedings in writ petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners had a right to inspect the documents necessary for their defense, even if those documents were not relied upon by the Government. The refusal to allow inspection violated Rule 14(11) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice. The court also held that the petitioners were justified in refusing to participate in the disciplinary proceedings due to the denial of inspection. The subsequent enquiry and orders of reduction in rank were vitiated and set aside.
Issues: 1. Whether the order refusing inspection of documents contravened Rule 14(11) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, or the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice? 2. Whether the petitions were liable to be dismissed on the preliminary ground that the petitioners had not availed themselves of the remedy of appeal under Rule 23 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rule 14(11) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, confers a right on government servants to inspect documents necessary for their defense, even if those documents are not relied upon by the Government. This right can be exercised irrespective of whether the government servant files a written statement or not. 2. The refusal to allow inspection of documents necessary for the defense of the petitioners violated Rule 14(11) and the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice. 3. The petitioners were justified in refusing to participate in the disciplinary proceedings due to the denial of inspection. 4. The subsequent enquiry and orders of reduction in rank were vitiated and set aside.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed. The disciplinary enquiries held against the petitioners were set aside from the stage at which the order refusing inspection of documents was passed. The orders reducing the petitioners in rank were also set aside. Costs of the writ petitions were awarded to the petitioners.
( 1 ) IT is one facet of the natural justice right to a hearing embodied in sub-r. (11) of R. 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter called the CCS (CCA) Rules) which comes up for consideration mainly by way of statutory construction in these two writ petitions, namely, Civil Writs 670 and 717 of 1969.
( 2 ) THE four petitioners were Sorters in the Railway Mail Service at Delhi. The first four respondents are the concerned departmental officials, the fifth one being the Union of India. The petitioners were suspended by an order dated 5th October, 1968. On 12-12-1968 charge sheets accompanied by a statement of allegations against them were served on the petitioners who were asked to file the written statement in defence within ten days. The charges were that the petitioners had been ordered by Respondent No. 4 Parbhatilal about 01-05 hours on 5-10-1968 to dispose of mails from New Delhi RMS/3 dated 4-10-1968, X-3 out dated 4-10-1968, Central PSO-3 dated 4-10-1968 and Eastern Court Post Office dated 4-10-1968. But they refused to do so. On 16-12-1968, the petitioners made a representation to the Director of Postal Services against the charges brought against them- On 23rd and 26th December 1968, they made an application to the Respondent No. 2 who had served the charges on them to afford them facilities for inspection of the originals of the following documents and provide copies thereof, namely:
1. Attendance Register of 4th, 5th October, 1968. 2. Arrangement Register of 18-9-1968 19-9-1968. 3. Statements of Shri Parbhati Lal, IRM Delhi RMS Shri Atam Jit Ahuja, Supervisor Delhi RMS if they had been recorded already; 4. Log book of Mail van (register of movement of Mail Motors of alternative set M. A. 2. 5. Work papers of M. A. 1, M. A. 4 of 4th and 5th October 1968. 6. Diary notes of Shri Atamjit Ahuja, Supervisor Mail Agency Branch for the 4th and 5th October 1968. 7. Rough note book of M. A- 2 and Daily Report of M. A. 2 of 17-9-68 also supplied. 8. Diary notes of Shri Parbhati Lal, Inspector RMS for 4th and 5th October, 1968.
( 3 ) THE petitioners stated that without an inspection of the above documents it would be difficult for them to prepare and submit their defence. On 26th and 27th December 1968, however, the Respondent No. 2 allowed the inspection of the first two documents and stated that a copy of the statement of Shri Parbhatilal being the third document had already been supplied to the petitioners. But documents Nos. 4 to 8 were said to be irrelevant and their inspection was refused by necessary implication. On 31-12-1968 and 3-1-1969, the petitioners made a representation to the Respondent No. 1 complaining against the order of the Respondent No. 2 disallowing the prayer of the petitioners to inspect the documents considered relevant for the purpose of defence by them and stating that he was biased against the petitioners. They also referred to certain judicial decisions in support of their contention. The Respondent No. 1 rejected the representation of the petitioners by informing the Respondent No. 2 that the Respondent No. 2 was fully competent to suspend the petitioners and an Enquiry Officer outside Delhi RMS had been appointed and the petitioners should avail themselves of the full opportunity to place their case before him. The Respondent No. 3 was the Enquiry Officer appointed by Respondent No. 1.
( 4 ) ON 29-1-1969 the petitioners appeared before the Enquiry Officer (Respondent No. 3) and stated in writing before him that they had no confidence in an enquiry conducted by him he being a Class III official and also in view of the detailed reasons given in the representations which were made to the Respondent No. 1 (which included the complaint that the Respondent No. 2 had illegally disallowed the inspection of relevant documents to the petitioners ). The Enquiry Officer however told the petitioners that if they would not participate in t
