State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram

Judgment

STATE OF PUNJAB BHAGAT RAM October 9, 1974 [A. N. RAY, CJ. K. K. MATHEW AND A. ALAGIRISWAMI, JJ.j Constitution of India, 1950-Art. 311-Supp/y of synopsis of evidence of wit· nesses exami11ed during invest{gation-Whetf1er satisfies the requirement of reasonable opportunity. Iu a suit for declaration that his dismissal was illegal the respondent co11ten· ded that copies of statements of witnesses to be examined at the departmental enquiry were not supplied to him in spite of his request, The trial court held that no reasonable opportunity was given to the respondent. The High Court up held the decis.ion of tho trial court. On appeal to this Court it. was contended by the appellant that a synopsis of the evidence was adequate to acquaint the respondent to cross-examine the witnesses at the inc;iuiry. Dismissini: the appeal, HELD :

It i~ unjust and unfair to deny the Government servant 'copiei of statements of witnesse11 examined during investigation and produced at the mquiry in support of the charges levelled against him. A synopsis does not satisfy the requirements of giving the Government servant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken •. !371 D-EJ C1v1L AppELLATE JuR1so:or10N : Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1970. Appeal from the Ji,idgment & Decree dated the 14th November, 1968 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in R.F.A. Nos. 154 & 186 of 1964. 0. P. Sharma, for th(~ appellant. Hardayal Hardey and P, P. Juneja, for the respondent. The Judgment of the: Court was delivered by RAY, C.J. This appeal by certificate turns on the question as to whether tbe State gave the respondent a reasonable opportunity ·as contemplated by Article 311 of the Constitution. The respondent was a Sub Divisional Officer. The State ordered a deputm~ntal enquiry against the respondent.

The respondent filed a suit for a declaration that the dismissal of the respondent was illegal. One of <he grounds challenging the order of dismissal was that copies of starements recorded by the police in the course of investigation of the witnesses proposed to be examined at the departmental enquiry were not supplied by the State to the respondent in. spite of the ~equest ill that behalf. The tri?-1 Court found that copies of the statements of the witnesses as recorded by the Vigilance Department during the preliminary enquiry were not supplied to the respondent but only the synopsis was given. The trial Court, therefore, held that no reasonable opportunity was given to the respondent. PUNJAB v. BHAGAT RAM (Ray, C.J.) The High Court upheld the decision. The State contended that the respondent Vvas 1101 entitled to get copies pf statements.

The reasoning of the State was that the re~rc 11· <1ent 'was given the opportunity to cro>s examine the witnesses ar.d . during the cross-examination the respondent would h~.ve the crrc r· tumty of confronting the witnesses with the statements. · It is ccntended that the synor.sis was adequate to acquaint the resrcrdent with the gist of the evidence. The meaning of a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken is that the Government servant is afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against charges onwhich inquiry is held. The Government servanf 5hould be given an opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence. He can do so when he is told what the charges against him are. He can do so by cross examining the witnes5es productd against him. The object of supplying statements is that the Government servant will be able to refer to the previous statements of the witnesses proposed to be examil1J)d against the Government servant.

Unless the .1tatements are given to the Government servant he will not be able to have an effective and useful cross-examination. It is unjust and unfair to deny the Government servant copies of · statements of witnesses examined during investigation and produced . at the inquiry in support of the charges levelled against the Government servant. A synopsis does not satisfy the requirements of giving the Government servant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken. For these reasons the appeal is dismissed. The State will pay costs .to the respondent. P.B.R. Appeal dismi;sed. 9·--2SSSupCI 7.S