AZAD SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/petitioner, who was employed with respondent No.2 National Research Development Corporation was charge sheeted on the allegations that on 11th February, 1988, he threatened and abused, in a drunken state, the Deputy Chief Engineer of the respondent Corporation thereby contravening Rule 22 and Rule 3 (iii) CCS(Conduct) Rules which are applicable to the employees of the respondent. During the course of inquiry, a telegram was sent to the appellant/petitioner informing him that he was required to appear before him on 8th October, 1992. The case of the appellant is that the said telegram was received by him on 8th October, 1992 and when he went to the premises of the respondent on that day, he was not allowed to enter the office. Three witnesses were examined on that day in the absence of the appellant. Thereafter, evidence in his defence was led by the appellant who produced as many as 5 witnesses. The Inquiry Officer, vide his report dated 10th February, 1992 held the charges against the appellant to be proved. Vide order dated 28.1.1993, penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon the appellant. Being aggrieved, he filed appeal to the Board of Directors of the respondent Corporation. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 30th August, 1993. The penalty awarded to him was challenged by the appellant by way of WP(C) No 2250/1994 which came to be dismissed vide order dated 4th August, 2009.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the appellant was not permitted to enter the premises of the respondent on 8th October, 1992, the witnesses were examined in his absence and were not recalled for cross examination by him, there was clear violation of the principles of natural justice. It was next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that having been appointed at the instance of the complainant, the Inquiry Officer was biased against the appellant and therefore the findings rendered by him came to be tainted with bias.

(3.) It is an admitted position that the appellant received the telegram dated 7th October, 1992 though he claims to have received the same only on 8th October, 1992. PW-1 to PW-3 were examined on 8th October, 1992 in the absence of the appellant. The record does not indicate that any application was submitted by the appellant to the Inquiry Officer seeking recall of those witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination by him. Relying upon the proceedings recorded by the Inquiry Officer on 21st October, 1992, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that an oral request was made by the appellant to the Inquiry Officer to recall the witnesses who were examined in his absence on 8th October, 1992 but the request was declined. The relevant extract from the proceedings dated 21st October, 1992 reads as under:-