Back
2010 (2) Supreme 444
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B. Sudershan Reddy and Deepak Verma, JJ.
L.I.C. of India & Anr. — Appellants
versus
Ram Pal Singh Bisen — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 893 of 2007
Decided on : 16-3-2010
(b) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XII, Rules 2 and 3A – No attempt made to prove documents marked exhibits – The party cannot draw any advantage therefrom. (Para 24)
(c) Procedural law – Failure to prove the defence does not amount to an admission, nor does it reverse or discharge the burden of proof of the plaintiff – However the duty cast on the defendants has to be discharged by adducing oral evidence. (Para 25)
(d) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 61 – Mere admission of document in evidence does not amount to its proof – Mere marking of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof. (Paras 26 and 31)
(e) Service Law – Natural justice – In view of the Courts below concurrently recoding finding that respondent was not afforded opportunity no relief can be granted to the appellant. (Paras 32 and 33)
Facts of the case:
1. Following service of charge-sheet the respondent was suspended.
2. In reply to the show cause notice, the respondent claimed non-compliance with principles of natural justice.
3. Respondent was dismissed by a non-speaking order.
4. Respondent’s appeals were rejected. He filed a suit.
5. The appellant lost in all courts.
Finding of the Court :
There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
Result : Appeal dismissed with cost.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
Mere Admission Does Not Equal Proof: The court emphasized that simply admitting a document in evidence does not constitute proof of its contents. Proper proof in accordance with law is necessary for documents to be considered valid evidence (!) (!) .
Failure to Prove Documents Affects Case: The absence of proper proof of documents filed by the parties, despite their admission or marking as exhibits, weakens their case. The duty to prove documents lies with the party relying on them, and mere filing or marking does not suffice unless lawfully proved (!) (!) .
Procedural Non-Compliance: The parties failed to adhere to procedural requirements under the relevant civil procedure rules, such as serving notices of admission or denial of documents, which are essential for establishing the authenticity of documents in court (!) (!) .
Lack of Oral Evidence from Defendants: The defendants did not lead oral evidence to substantiate their defense, which is necessary to discharge their burden of proof. The absence of oral evidence and proper proof of documents led to the court's conclusion that their defense was not established (!) .
Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The courts found that the respondent was not provided a fair opportunity to defend himself during the departmental inquiry, notably because he was not furnished with the inquiry report or given adequate notice. This resulted in a violation of natural justice principles, rendering the proceedings invalid (!) (!) (!) .
Impact of Procedural Violations: The failure to follow proper procedures, including the non-disclosure of the inquiry report and the absence of proper proof of documents, led to the court setting aside the dismissal order and reinstating the respondent with consequential benefits (!) (!) .
Legal Consequences of Non-Proof: The document underscores that even if a document is admitted or marked, it does not automatically prove its contents unless properly proved according to law. The burden remains on the party relying on such documents to establish their authenticity and contents (!) (!) .
Finality of Court’s Findings: The appellate courts upheld the trial court’s findings, confirming that the respondent was denied a fair hearing, and that the subsequent actions based on the flawed inquiry proceedings were invalid. The courts dismissed the appeal, affirming the respondent’s reinstatement and benefits (!) (!) .
Retirement and Reinstatement: Since the respondent retired after attaining superannuation, the court noted that reinstatement was no longer feasible. The appropriate remedy was monetary benefits rather than reinstatement, considering his retirement status (!) .
Cost and Legal Fees: The court ordered the appellants to bear the costs of litigation, including a specified counsel’s fee (!) (!) .
These points collectively highlight the importance of procedural compliance, proper proof of documents, and adherence to principles of natural justice in legal proceedings.
JUDGMENT
Deepak Verma, J. —
1. Ignorance is a bliss, especially in the vast field of law, stands established from the narration of facts of this appeal as would fully expose it. Against findings of fact vide judgment and decree recorded by Additional District Judge No.2, Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 93 of 1982 (10/80), decided on 28.5.1993, confirmed in S.B. First appeal No. 178 of 1993 by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jaipur and further affirmed in Special Appeal (Civil) No. 42 of 1996 by Division Bench of the said Court, decided on 30.9.2005, unsuccessful appellants/ defendants are before us, challenging the same on variety of grounds.
2. Needless to say the facts unfolded before us from the C.A. No.893 of 2007 record as well as during the course of hearing reveal a sorry state of affairs as to the manner in which suit had been contested in the trial court by the appellants herein, abutting gross negligence and callous manner, not even adhering to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act, yet challenging the same before this Court, even after having lost from all courts.
3. Thumb-nail sketch of the facts of the case are as under:
4. Respondent herein original plaintiff was appointed by the appellants/defendants on probation as a Development officer on 5.4.1964. He was confirmed on the said post on 1.4.1966. It is not in dispute that his service conditions were regulated by Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (hereinafter shall be referred to as “Staff Regulations”) framed in exercise of powers conferred under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 49 of Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 5. Charge sheet dated 16.4.1974 imputing six charges was served on him. He was also placed under suspension. Supplementary charge sheet was also served on him on 21.10.1974. Mr. R.S. Maheshwari was appointed as Inquiry C.A. No.893 of 2007 Officer, who after completion of inquiry proceedings furnished his report to Disciplinary Authority on 29.01.1976. On the basis of this, respondent was served with show-cause notice on 23.2.1976 stating inter-alia that in view of the fact that some of the serious charges stood proved against him, why order of dismissal from service be not passed against him.
6. Respondent submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 02.04.1976, pointing out irregularities committed during the course of inquiry by the Inquiry Officer. His categorical case in reply was that he has not been given adequate, proper, reasonable and sufficient opportunity of hearing during the domestic inquiry. Therefore, the whole inquiry stood vitiated on the principles of natural justice. It deserves to be quashed and no action on such an inquiry report can be taken against him.
7. However, without taking note of the submissions of the respondent, appellants by non speaking order and further without disclosing any opinion, on the basis of which respondent was held guilty of charges levelled against him, arrived at a conclusion for his dismissal from service vide order dated 11.5.1976.
8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the respondent was C.A. No.893 of 2007 constrained to prefer a departmental appeal under Regulation 40 of Staff Regulations but that too met the fate of dismissal vide order dated 20.12.1976.
9. He then submitted further mercy appeal before the Chairman of LIC but without any favourable result as the same came to be dismissed on 12.10.1977.
10. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed by appellants herein, respondent as plaintiff was constrained to file a suit, as an indigent person before Additional District Judge No.2, Ajmer, for declaration that the departmental inquiry proceedings culminating in order of dismissal from service, the appellate order, and further order passed by the Chairman of the appellant- Corporation as null and void. Consequently, he be held entitled for r
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
