A departmental enquiry against a public servant must be conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice, including the right to cross-examine witnesses and adduce evidence in defense.

Judgement

NARASIMHAM, C.J. :- This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by the Manager of Parlakimedi Municipality against an order of dismissal from service passed by the Commissioner and Special Officer of the Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the Special Officer) Sri K. M, Das on 1-4-51 after a departmental enquiry. The petitioner filed an appeal to the State Government on 1-5-51. But it appears that no orders were passed by the Government on the appeal. It is indeed strange that an appeal of this type should have remained undisposed of by the Government for such a long period. In sheer despair the petitioner came to this Court for relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution on 22-9-55 and though the learned Advocate General appeared for the State of Orissa during the hearing of this petition he has not been able to enlighten us as to what happened to the petitioners appeal.

2. The conditions of service of the petitioner as an employee of a Municipality governed by the Madras District Boards Act, 1920, were regulated by various Rules and Orders issued by the appropriate authority from time to time. On behalf of the Municipality it was stated that the procedure to be observed in a departmental enquiry against a Municipal servant was regulated by Rule 4 of Madras Government Order No. 3600. L and M, dated the 8th September, 1932, which is as follows :

"No order of dismissal or removal or reduction or suspension not being one pending enquiry, or withholding increments or promotion, shall be passed on an Officer or servant or a municipal council (other than an order based on facts which have led to his conviction in a criminal Court) unless he has been informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action and has been offered an adequate opportunity of defending himself. The grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges, which shall be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and of any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders on the case. He shall be required, within a reasonable time, to put in a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. If he so desires or if the authority concerned so direct, an oral enquiry shall be held. At that enquiry oral evidence shall be heard as to such of the allegations as are not admitted and the person charged shall be entitled to cross examine the witnesses, to give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called, as he may wish provided that the person conducting the enquiry may, for special and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing, refuse to call a witness. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and a statement of the findings and the grounds thereof :

Provided that this rule shall not apply where the person concerned has absconded, or where it is for other reasons impracticable to communicate with him :

Provided also that where there is difficulty in observing exactly the requirements of this rule all or any of the provisions thereof may, in exceptional cases, for special and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, be waived with the previous sanction of the Local Government."

This Rule is practically identical with R. 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules which regulates the conditions of service of Government servants.

3. On 5-1-51 the Special Officer, after holding some sort of preliminary scrutiny framed twenty-three charges against the petitioner for negligence of duty misfeasance and malfeasance and called upon him to submit his explanation within ten days of the receipt of the charges. He immediately placed him under suspension and also asked him to state whether he desired to be heard in person. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 6-2-51 completely denying