STATE OF MYSORE Vs. SHIVABASAPPA SHIVAPPA MAKAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Mysore in a Writ Petition filed by respondent challenging the validity of an order of dismissal dated July 5, 1956 made by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Belgaum. The respondent entered service in the Police Department as a constable in the District of Dharwar in 1940 and was at the material dates a sub-inspector of Police. On a complaint preferred by one Machwe of Kurdiwadi against him, Mr. Majumdar, Inspector, C. I. D. made a preliminary investigation, examined a number of witnesses and recorded their statements, and submitted his report recommending further action. On that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Belgaum, started proceedings against the respondent, framed six charges against him, and called for his explanation. The respondent denied the charges, and then a regular inquiry was held on November 4, 1954. Clause (8) of S. 545 of the Bombay Police Manual which lays down the procedure to be followed in such inquiries is as follows:

(2.) The respondent would have been well advised to have left the matter there. But he chose to prefer an appeal against the order. The Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Belgaum, before whom it came, not only dismissed it but issued in exercise of his powers in revision, a notice to the respondent to show cause why he should not be removed from service and after taking his explanation ordered his dismissal on July 5, 1956. The respondent filed a revision against this order to the Government of Bombay and under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 that came before the Government of Mysore and was dismissed on August 31, 1957. The respondent thereupon filed in the High Court of Mysore, the Writ Petition out of which the present appeal arises, questioning the validity of the order of dismissal dated July, 5, 1956 on a number of grounds of which we are concerned in this appeal with only one, namely, that the inquiry be the Deputy Superintendent of Police was conducted in disregard of the rules of natural justice and in consequence the order made was bad. The learned Judges of the High Court agreed with this contention. They held, on the authority of certain observations made by this Court in Union of India vs. T. R. Varma, (1958) SCR 499 and by the Bombay High Court in State of Bombay vs. Gajanan Mahadev, ILR (1954) Bom 915 that principles of natural justice required that the evidence of witnesses in support of the charges should be recorded in the presence of the enquiring officer and of the person against whom it is sought to be used. In this view they held further that S. 545(8) of the Bombay Police Manual was bad as it contravened principles of natural justice. They accordingly held that the enquiry was vitiated by the admission in evidence of the statements made by the witnesses before Mr. Majumdar without an independent examination of them before the Deputy Superintendent of Police. In the result the order of dismissal was set aside. It is the correctness of this judgment that is now under challenge before us.

(3.) The sole point for determination in this appeal therefore is whether the procedure adopted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police in admitting the statements of witnesses examined before Mr. Mujumdar in evidence is opposed to the rules of natural justice. The question is one of importance, because as appears from the cases which have come before us the procedure followed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police in this case is the one followed by many tribunals exercising quasi-judicial powers. For a correct appreciation of the position, it is necessary to repeat what has often been said that tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions are not Courts and that therefore they are not bound to follow the procedure prescribed for trial of actions in Courts nor are they bound by strict rules of evidence. They can, unlike Courts, obtain all information material for the points under enquiry from all sources, and through all channels, without being fettered by rules and procedure which govern proceedings in Court. The only obligation which the law casts on them is that they should not act on any information which they may receive unless they put it to the party against whom it is to be used and give him a fair opportunity to explain it. What is a fair opportunity must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but where such an opportunity had been given, the proceedings are not open to attack on the ground that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the procedure followed in Courts.