Advocates:
B.P.SRIVASTAVA, GOPAL SUBRAMANIUM, M.K.RAMAMURTHY, M.S.GUJRAL, N.M.POPLI, R.N.Poddar, SHOBHA DIXIT, V.J.Francis

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• The scope of the inquiry regarding the validity of the dismissal order was restricted to whether the principles of Natural Justice were violated by refusing to supply copies of witness statements from the preliminary inquiry and copies of documents relied upon by the disciplinary authority. (!) (!)
• Eight serious charges were leveled against the appellant, who was the Superintendent of Police, and he was exonerated of most charges but faced dismissal on the remaining ones. (!)
• The central issue was whether the failure to supply copies of witness statements recorded ex parte and documents relied upon by the department violated Natural Justice. (!) (!)
• The appellant had formally requested copies of witness statements and documents in a letter dated 21-4-1962, but these requests were turned down by the Disciplinary Authority. (!) (!)
• Although the appellant was permitted to inspect the documents, his request to be accompanied by a stenographer to dictate notes was refused, and he was told to make notes himself. (!) (!)
• Copies of the statements and documents were not supplied to the appellant until the conclusion of the departmental proceedings. (!)
• A total of 38 witnesses were examined, and 112 documents were produced to substantiate the charges against the appellant. (!)
• The Court overruled the preliminary objection that the point was not raised before the High Court, noting that the High Court failed to deal with the question despite the point being argued and affirmed in affidavits. (!) (!) (!)
• The disciplinary authority explicitly refused the appellant's application dated December 3, 1963, for copies of documents and statements, citing that the appellant already had access to official records. (!) (!) (!)
• The Court held that without copies of relevant statements and documents, an employee cannot effectively prepare a defense, cross-examine witnesses, or point out inconsistencies, constituting a denial of reasonable opportunity. (!)
• Even though the authority allowed inspection, they refused the specific request for a stenographer, and the Court found this stance unreasonable and prejudicial. (!) (!)
• The Court found it impossible to hold that the appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity given the refusal to supply copies in a case involving 38 witnesses and 112 documents. (!)
• The Court relied on precedents like Tirlok Nath v. Union of India and State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram, which established that failure to furnish copies of documents and statements amounts to prejudice and denies a reasonable opportunity. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
• The Court concluded that the impugned order of dismissal was violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and was null and void. (!)
• The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the order of dismissal was quashed, declaring it a nullity. (!)
• The Court directed that the appellant be treated as having continued in service until his superannuation date and prohibited the State Government from holding a fresh inquiry on the same charges. (!)