SHANKAR GOTIRAM KALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal issued by the Government of Maharashtra dated 19th July 1973 removing him from Government service with immediate effect. It appears from the record that the petitioner who was a Government servant at the relevant time was working as the Additional Mamlatdar and A. L. T.Dahanu District Thane. On 15th Sept., 1966 he was found dead drunk at his own residence and according to the respondent Government he misbehaved with Smt. Devoobai and went to the extent of rmolesting her. An oral report in that be half was made to one Narsule, who was then working as the Mamlatdar. Ultimately the Government took decision of holding a departmental inquiry against the petitioner and vide charge-sheet dated 19th April, 1968 he was called upon to submit his explanation. With this charge-sheet a statement of allegations was also supplied to the petitioner. Vide letter dated 4-6-1968 the petitioner requested the Inquiry Officer to furnish him with the copies of the following documents:

(2.) On the other hand it is contended by Mr. phanuka, learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the earlier statements made by the witnesses before the Prant Officer were neither relevant nor they were used by the Inquiry Officer or the Government while issuing the order of removal. Mr. Dhanuka further contended that the principles of natural justice cannot be imprisoned in a steel-jacketed formula and ultimately it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case as to whether non-supply of the copies of a particular document has resulted in miscarriage of justice or prejudice to the delinquent petitioner. Mr. Dhanuka further contended that the petitioner was well aware of the statements made by the witnesses before the Prant Officer and, therefore, mere non-supply of the copies of the said documents has not resulted in any prejudice so far as the present case is concerned. It is not possible for us to accept this contention of Mr. Dhanuka.

(3.) It appears from the record that the Prant Officer concerned had recorded the statements of the material witnesses on whose evidence the respondent Government was relying upon for proving the misconduct against the delinquent petitioner. These statements were recorded first in point of time. It was not disputed by Mr. Dhanuka, nor it could be disputed by him, that the meaning of reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken will include affording reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the charges on which the inquiry is held. For this the Government servant should be given an opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence. He can do so by cross-examining the witnesses produced against him. The very object of supplying statements is that the Government servant will be able to refer to the earlier statements of the witnesses proposed to be examined against him. Unless the statements are given to the Government servants, he will not be able to have an effective and useful cross-examination. See State of Punjab V/s. Bhagat Ram, 1974 AIR(SC) 2335 Therefore, obviously it will be unfair and unjust to deny the Government servant the copies of the statements of the witnesses examined during the investigation and ultimately produced at the inquiry in support of the charges levelled against him. This appears to be a well established principle. What is contemplated is the opportunity to effectively cross-examine the witnesses produced during the course of inquiry. In a given case effective cross-examination will not be possible if the copies of the statements recorded on the earlier occasion are not supplied to the Government servants. In the present case it is not correct to say that the statements recorded before the Prant Officer were neither referred to nor used by the Inquiry Officer. From the bare reading of the report submitted by the Special Officer for departmental inquiries and particularly from para. 11 thereof, it is quite clear that while appreciating the evidence of the witnesses adduced before him the Inquiry Officer had made a reference to the statements recorded by the Prant Officer. Therefore, in this case use of these statements was made by the Inquiry Officer for arriving at a finding of guilt. If this is so, then in our opinion lapse or refusal on the part of the Inquiry Officer to supply the copies of the previous statements to the petitioner has obviously resulted in prejudice as the petitioner had no reasonable opportunity to effectively cross-examine the witnesses. On this short ground alone, therefore, the inquiry held is vitiated as the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to show cause within the meaning of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. Once it is held that the dismissal or removal of the petitioner is in contravention of the provisions of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, then obviously the order of removal passed by the respondent Government is ab initio void and is liable to be quashed.