Back
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
R. L. Narasimham, C. J. And G. C. Das, J.
JAMES BUSHI - Appellant
Versus
COLLECTOR OF GANJAM - Respondent
Original Jurisdiction Case 58 Of 1957
Decided On : FEBRUARY 06, 1959
NATURAL JUSTICE - DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY - LEGAL REPRESENTATION - ARTICLE 14 - PRIVILEGE - SECTION 124 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT - C. I. D. INVESTIGATION - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Head-Clerk in the Civil Supplies Branch of Ganjam Collectorate, was dismissed from service following departmental proceedings initiated against him on charges of corruption. He challenged the order of dismissal, alleging denial of natural justice and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
1. Denial of legal representation during departmental proceedings does not necessarily amount to a violation of natural justice, especially when the charges are simple and the accused has sufficient educational and other attainments to defend himself. 2. Article 14 of the Constitution was not violated merely because the prosecution was assisted by a C. I. D. Inspector while the petitioner was denied legal help, as the Inspector's legal attainments were not comparable to those of a lawyer. 3. Statements made by witnesses during a confidential C. I. D. investigation preceding a departmental enquiry are privileged under Section 124 of the Evidence Act, and the accused is not entitled to copies of such statements. 4. The refusal of the enquiring officer to permit the petitioner to examine a C. I. D. Inspector and to recall a witness for further cross-examination is a matter primarily for the consideration of the enquiring officer and the appellate authority, and the court will not interfere unless there is a clear violation of natural justice.
Issues: 1. Whether the denial of legal representation during departmental proceedings violated the principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution. 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to copies of statements made by witnesses during a confidential C. I. D. investigation preceding the departmental enquiry. 3. Whether the refusal of the enquiring officer to permit the petitioner to examine a C. I. D. Inspector and to recall a witness for further cross-examination amounted to a denial of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The denial of legal representation during departmental proceedings does not necessarily amount to a violation of natural justice, as the accused may have sufficient educational and other attainments to defend himself. In this case, the petitioner had worked in the Collectorate for 14 years and had risen to the post of Head Clerk, indicating his ability to defend himself without legal help. 2. Statements made by witnesses during a confidential C. I. D. investigation preceding a departmental enquiry are privileged under Section 124 of the Evidence Act, and the accused is not entitled to copies of such statements. This is because such investigations are meant to find out whether there is a prima facie case for initiating a regular departmental enquiry, and disclosing the statements may make it impossible to collect any information. 3. The refusal of the enquiring officer to permit the petitioner to examine a C. I. D. Inspector and to recall a witness for further cross-examination is a matter primarily for the consideration of the enquiring officer and the appellate authority. The court will not interfere unless there is a clear violation of natural justice.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and no order was made as to costs.
R. L. NARASIMHAM, C. J.
( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order of the district Collector of Ganjam dated the 2nd March 1957, dismissing the petitioner from service.
( 2 ) THE petitioner was serving in Ganjam Collectorate for about 13 years and rose to the rank of Head-Clerk of the Civil Supplies Branch of that Coliectorate at chatrapur. In 1951-52 the petitioner was working as the Head-clerk of the Civil supplies Branch of the Sub-Collector's Office at Berhampur. On receipt of information about corruption while he was working in that capacity, a preliminary confidential investigation was made by some C. I. D. Officers of the Anti-Corruption department and on the basis of that investigation, Government, in the Cabinet department, addressed a letter to the District Collector of Ganjam on the 7th october 1955 (vide annexure B) requesting him to draw up departmental proceedings against the petitioner for disciplinary action. Government further suggested that a Police officer of the rank of Inspector, of the anti-Corruption Department, named Sri J. N. Ghosh, might marshal the evidence against the petitioner during such departmental enquiry. On receipt of that letter the District Collector Magistrate of Ganjam on the 23rd October, 1955 framed four charges against the petitioner and directed the departmental enquiry to be held by the Sub-Collector of Berhampur. Before that Officer Sri J. N. Ghosh marshalled the evidence of the prosecution and twenty-seven witnesses were examined against the petitioner. The Sub-Collector then submitted a report to the District Collector on the 31st August 1956, holding the petitioner guilty of all the four charges and recommending his dismissal from service. A copy of the Sub-Collector's report was sent by the District Magistrate to the petitioner and he was called upon to show CM use why he may not be dismissed from service. This notice was issued obviously in compliance with the provisions of article 311 (2) of the Constitution. The petitioner then filed; a lengthy representation to the District Collector, who after reviewing the entire evidence collected by the Enquiring Officer (Sub-Collector) and considering the representation made by the petitioner, held that the charges were established and passed final orders on the 2nd March 1957 dismissing him from service.
( 3 ) MR. G. K. Misra on Behalf of the petitioner urged that the petitioner did not get an adequate opportunity to defend himself for the following reasons:
(i) The petitioner was not permitted to engage a lawyer to defend him though, as stated above the evidence against him was marshalled by c. I. D. Officer of the rank of Inspector, viz. , Sri J. N. Ghosh, who was trained in the work of collecting evidence and prosecuting criminal cases.
(ii) The petitioner was not supplied with copies of statements made by the prosecution witnesses before the C. I. D. during the confidential investigation which preceded the departmental enquiry, and he was thus effectively prevented from cross-examining these witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner's prayer for permission to examine Sri J. N. Ghosh was rejected by the enquiring officer, and similarly his prayer for recalling P. W. 1 Mohan Nayak for further cross-examination was also rejected. This action of the enquiring officer materially prejudiced the petitioner in his defence.
( 4 ) IN departmental proceedings against delinquent public servants they are not entitled, as of right, to be represented by a lawyer; and it is left to the discretion of the officer holding the enquiry to allow or refuse to allow a lawyer to represent the delinquent officer. Hence, the mere denial of such legal help will not necessarily involve failure to observe the rules of natural justice in all cases. In considering the question of prejudice other factors such as the nature of the charges made against the public servant and his own educational and other attainments which have a beari
AI
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
