UNION OF INDIA Vs. INDER NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is at the instance of Union of India and others and is directed against the judgment of Chittatosh Mookerjee J. making the Rule obtained by the respondent Inder Nath on his application under Article 226 of the Constitution, absolute.

(2.) THE respondent was appointed a lower grade clerk in the Amalgamated Clerical Establishment of the Andaman and Nicobar Administration by the Chief Commissioner. Thereafter, he was promoted to the officiating post of higher grade clerk in the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Port Blair. On December 1, 1967 he was placed under suspension and on December 5, 1967 a charge-sheet containing 11 Articles of charge was served upon him by the District and Sessions Judge of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. On the next day, the respondent made an application to the District and Sessions Judge praying for inspection of all the relevant documents so as to enable him to file his explanation within the stipulated time. It was further prayed by him that the copies of all relevant documents to be produced before the Enquiring Officer might also be furnished to him so that he might be able to defend himself property. The District and Sessions Judge by his order dated December 7, 1967 allowed the respondent's prayer for inspection of the relevant, documents. The respondent was permitted to inspect the documents in the Court room in the presence of the Bench Clerk from 1-15 P. M. to 3-30, P. M. Regarding supply of the copies of the documents, it was directed that the respondent might cite the rules under which he was. entitled to get copies. On December 8, 1967 the District and Sessions Judge refused the respondent's prayer for supply to him of copies of documents on the ground that preparation and furnishing of copies would involve harassment of proceedings and delay of the disposal of enquiry. The respondent made subsequent representations for the supply of copies, but the same were rejected. He was only permitted to inspect the records. On June 17, 1968 the documents relating to the articles of charge no. II was produced before him for inspection. The Enquiring Officer, however, disallowed the respondent to take notes of the documents in ink on the ground that Note 2 of Rule 394, Chapter XVIII of Civil Rules and Orders, Volume I, prohibited taking down of notes other than short memoranda to be written in pencil. The Enquiring Officer rejected the objection of the respondent that the said rule was inapplicable to the disciplinary proceeding which was being held under the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. In other words, the respondent was not allowed to take detailed notes either in ink or in pencil and as he insisted on taking down detailed notes in ink, the Enquiring Officer by his order passed on the same day, that is, on June 17, 1968 even cancelled his earlier orders dated June 12, 1968 and June 15, 1968 permitting the respondent to inspect the documents. He, however, granted liberty to the respondent to inspect the documents on 24 hours' notice in the manner as directed by the Enquiring Officer, that is, he would have to take short notes of the documents in pencil and not in ink. As the respondent was prevented from taking notes of the documents including certain reports against him which were all relied on by the disciplinary authority and mentioned in the Annexure to the charge-sheet issued by him, he could not file his written defence or explanation.

(3.) THE disciplinary proceeding; continued without the written defence of the respondent. On behalf of the disciplinary authority certain witnesses were examined at the enquiry and they were all cross-examined by the respondent. The witnesses were examined charge-wise, in consequence of which the same witness had to be examined and cross-examined more than once Certain witnesses who were not named in the Annexure to the charge-sheet were examined at the enquiry without any prior notice to the respondent. Further, certain documents which were not disclosed to the respondent at any stage and not even mentioned in the Annexure to the charge-sheet were also proved through the new witnesses. The respondent protested against the charge-wise examination of witnesses and also examination of new witnesses and admission of documents not mentioned in the charge-sheet and without any notice to him. But the Enquiring Officer overruled the said objection of the respondent; and proceeded with the enquiry.