(1.) Validity of the impugned order of dismissal is in issue.
(2.) The scope of the inquiry whether the impugned order of dismissal dated June 11, 1969 is null and void is restricted to two facets. Whether the principles of Natural Justice were violated by the Respondents by refusing to supply to the appellant (1) copies of the statements of the witnesses examined at the stage of preliminary inquiry preceding the commencement of the inquiry and (2) copies of the documents said to have been relied upon by the disciplinary authority in order to establish the charges against the appellant who was holding the post of Superintendent of Police, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh. Such is the position having regard to the fact that this Court per Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) and Kailasam, J. as per order dated October 25, 1977 whilst granting special leave, has so restricted the scope of the appeal in the following terms : -
(3.) As many as 8 charges, charges of serious nature, were levelled against the appellant who was at the material time holding the post of Superintendent of Police. The appellant was exonerated of all the charges except and save charges 1 and 2 and charge 8 partly. The particulars of the charges were set out in the statement of allegations accompanying the charge-sheet dated April 3, 1962. The appellant challenged the impugned order of dismissal from service in the High Court on a number of grounds. The High Court repelled all the contentions and dismissed the Writ Petition. It is not necessary to advert to these contentions inasmuch as the controversy has now been narrowed down to one central issue viz. whether there has been violation of principles of natural justice by reason of :