MOHAMMED KUTHUBUDDIN AND OTHERS Vs. THE ADDITIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, MADURAI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE due place and value of signed statements of witnesses examined by a Police lnspector of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti -Corruption, in the course of investigation leading to disciplinary proceeding arises for consideration in this batch of petitions. They were originally before a single Judge, who have regard to the importance of the question, referred them to a Division Bench. On petitions from certain village officers in Tirumangalam taluk in Madurai Dist. that specified Revenue Subordinates, Tahsildars and Deputy Tahsildars demanded and obtained illegal gratification from them in connection with passage of village accounts, the Inspector investigated into the allegations and made a report. The materials of investigation he sent up contained signed statements from certain witnesses who were mostly village officers, stated to be the victims. The cases were eventually referred to the Disciplinary Tribunals which, on the basis in the main of such signed statements, framed charges against the petitioners to the effect that actuated by corrupt motives and abuse of their position and authority as Upper Division Clerks in the Collector's Office, at Madurai, they demanded at the specified place and time and received illegal gratification of specified amounts from named village officers whose accounts were checked during the Jamabandi. The propriety of these charges is questioned by them. This they do on the analogy of the provisions of Chap. XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code, and of Sirajuddin v. Government of Madras : (1968) 1 M. L.J. 480 : 1966 L.W. Crl. 223 and Sirajuddin etc. v. State of Madras : (1970) 1 S. C. C. 595. They go so far as to suggest that Rule 5 (b) of the Madras Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules 1955, is ultra vires and is violative of Article 311 of the Constitution inasmuch as it permits a decision to be taken by the Government on the investigation records including such statements, to refer the cases to the Disciplinary Tribunal. On these grounds they pray that the proceedings before the Tribunal should be quashed.

(2.) WE think that the question is basically one of fairness to the persons charged, and application to the disciplinary proceedings of the elementary principles of justice. In Criminal investigations, the Law of this land is embodied in Chap. XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code abundantly ensures it by safeguards and limitations on the powers of the police. In cognisable cases, the police register a case on First Information and commence investigation in which they are empowered to examine witnesses and reduces to writing any statement made by them. Lest the power is misused by employing unfair methods, a signed statement by a person to a police officer in the course of an investigation is forbidden. This is by way of protection to the accused, for the deponent at the trial may be planed down to his former signed statement. The protection is extended by limiting the use of such statements for contradiction. Such statements can never be used as substantive evidence. As an instance of ensuring fairness is enjoined on the police officer not be offer any inducement or make threat or promise as is mentioned in S. 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, to any person. But at the same time, he shall not prevent any person from making, in the course of the investigation, any statement which he may be disposed to make of his own freedom. Still further safeguards are to be found in the Code as well as the said Act in respect of confessional statement made to police officers, and certain other matters during investigation. After investigation the police officer is required to make a report to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. Sirajuddin v. Government of Madras : (1968) 1 M.L.J. 480. : 1966 L.W. Cri. 223 held that statements recorded during an investigation in violation of the mandatory safeguards provided by Ss. 161 and 162 of the Code, should not be considered at the stage of framing charges under S. 251 -A . That was a remarkable case of an exceptional nature in which the records of investigation brought out a kind of pre -determination on the part of the the police as to the guilt of the accused, and not only statements signed by witnesses were taken, but they were provided with certificates of amnesty. The charges based on such statements were quashed. With this conclusion, the Supreme Court in Sirajudddin etc. v. State of Madras : (1970) 1 S.C.C. 595 concurred. In doing so, It was pointed out that as the Government has set up a Vigliance and Anti -Corruption Department and it was entrusted with enquiries of the kind, no exception could be taken to the enquiry by the officers of the department, but any such enquiry must proceed in a fair and reasonable manner. Then followed the observations:

(3.) THE substance of the approach should, in our view, equally apply to investigations leading to disciplinary proceedings which, in certain respects, are of a quasi -criminal nature. Parallels can be drawn between the two kinds of proceedings. At the same time, we should think that there are many gaps in the line of disciplinary proceedings, which make it distinct and different from prosecutions for corruption, and this aspect necessarily bears on the question we have to decide.