K H SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the petitioners in their fresh replies filed to the second show cause notice had specifically urged that to enable them to successfully and effectively cross-examine Mr. Madhu Pandya the main actor of the scene these delinquents should be furnished with the statements ar his which were in the form of his applications to the Chief Minister and the Gujarat Public Service Commission. The Special Secretary who passed the impugned orders had dealt with this question in the course of his impugned orders. He did so specifically because the High Court in its earlier common judgment had directed that it is incumbent upon the disciplinary authority passing the final order in the departmental enquiry to give a speaking order dealing with all substantive or substantial contentions of the delinquent concerned. In this connection the Special Secretary states as follows:

(2.) In the order Annexure H dated 21-3-1978 which is the impugned order in the Special Civil Application No. 1670 of 1978 the very argument is dealt with as follows:

(3.) Before me it was very vehemently contended by Messrs. Anand and Desai the learned advocates appearing for the petitioners in the Special Civil Application No. 1670 and the Special Civil Application No. 1671 of 1978 respectively that as Mr. Madhu Pandya was the main witness of the department in the departmental enquiry as he had asserted that he had made the alleged payments to these petitioners against the promise of his being helped to clear the R. Q. Examination and as Mr. Madhu Pandya a public servant who could not at law commit the offence of giving bribe had been almost an approve who was not arraigned in the enquiry his earlier statements if furnished would have enabled these petitioners to effectively cross-examine the said Madhu Pandya and for aught the petitioners know the inconsistent statements of Mr. Madhu Pandya would have proved him a far more unreliable witness than the Department thought him to be. To me it appears that by denying the petitioners the opportunity to effectively and substantially cross-examine the said star witness of the Department in that joint enquiry The petitioners were denied a reasonable opportunity of making good their defence and this vital factor goes to the root of the impugned orders and vitiates them.