SURAT SINGH Vs. S R BAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is one facet of the natural justice right to a hearing embodied in sub-r. (11) of R. 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter called the CCS (CCA) Rules) which comes up for consideration mainly by way of statutory construction in these two writ petitions, namely, Civil Writs 670 and 717 of 1969.

(2.) The four petitioners were Sorters in the Railway Mail Service at Delhi. The first four respondents are the concerned departmental officials, the fifth one being the Union of India. The petitioners were suspended by an order dated 5th October, 1968. On 12-12-1968 charge sheets accompanied by a statement of allegations against them were served on the petitioners who were asked to file the written statement in defence within ten days. The charges were that the petitioners had been ordered by Respondent No. 4 Parbhatilal about 01-05 hours on 5-10-1968 to dispose of mails from New Delhi RMS/3 dated 4-10-1968, X-3 out dated 4-10-1968, Central PSO-3 dated 4-10-1968 and Eastern Court Post Office dated 4-10-1968. But they refused to do so. On 16-12-1968, the petitioners made a representation to the Director of Postal Services against the charges brought against them- On 23rd and 26th December 1968, they made an application to the Respondent No. 2 who had served the charges on them to afford them facilities for inspection of the originals of the following documents and provide copies thereof, namely:

(3.) The petitioners stated that without an inspection of the above documents it would be difficult for them to prepare and submit their defence. On 26th and 27th December 1968, however, the Respondent No. 2 allowed the inspection of the first two documents and stated that a copy of the statement of Shri Parbhatilal being the third document had already been supplied to the petitioners. But documents Nos. 4 to 8 were said to be irrelevant and their inspection was refused by necessary implication. On 31-12-1968 and 3-1-1969, the petitioners made a representation to the Respondent No. 1 complaining against the order of the Respondent No. 2 disallowing the prayer of the petitioners to inspect the documents considered relevant for the purpose of defence by them and stating that he was biased against the petitioners. They also referred to certain judicial decisions in support of their contention. The Respondent No. 1 rejected the representation of the petitioners by informing the Respondent No. 2 that the Respondent No. 2 was fully competent to suspend the petitioners and an Enquiry Officer outside Delhi RMS had been appointed and the petitioners should avail themselves of the full opportunity to place their case before him. The Respondent No. 3 was the Enquiry Officer appointed by Respondent No. 1.