A K DUTTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule is directed against a departmental inquiry being conducted against the petitioner in terms of Memo No. 88/cvc/7t-CDE (D), dated 6th of July, 1973 issued by shri D. N. Pande, the Commissioner for departmental inquiries being annexure 'n' to the writ petition. The petitioner in the instant Rule is a Zoologist; serving Zoological Survey of India. The said officer was charge sheeted by Shri s. P. Joshi, Deputy Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Education, by his Memo dated 12th of March 1969 being annexure 'c to the writ petition. It will appear from the statement of article of charges framed against the petitioner that tour charges were framed against the petitioner for various lapses alleged in the said statement of articles of charges. Along with the said chargesheet a statement of imputation of misconduct or mis-behaviour in respect of the articles of charges made against the petitioner was also forwarded to the petitioner and a list of documents by which the articles of charges framed against the petitioner were proposed to be sustained was also enclosed with the charge-sheet. Along with the chargesheet a list of witnesses by whom the articles of charges framed against the petitioner were proposed do be sustained was also forwarded to the petitioner. It appears that out of ten documents referred to in annexure 3 to the chargesheet a letter of Station Master, Nadbai, was also one of the documents proposed to be relied upon by the department. The Station Master, Nadbai, also appears to be one of the witnesses by whom the articles of charges were proposed to be proved.

(2.) IT appears that the petitioner asked for inspection of the documents referred to in the said annexure 3 including the letter of the Station Master, nadbai, but the department could not give inspection to the said letter of the station Master, Nadbai, in view of the fact that the said letter was misplaced and could not be found out. It also appears that despite the petitioner's repeated requests for supply of the copies of the statement of the witnesses referred to in annexure 4 to the chargesheet, statements of three witnesses had not been supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner also wanted to rely on a number of documents which were in the custody of the Government for the purpose of his defence against the proposed departmental inquiry. But it appears that only one document bearing serial No. 2 had been inspected by the petitioner and the document bearing serial No. 1 could not be inspected by the petitioner and the said document is reported to be missing and efforts were being made to trace the original. So far as the other documents bearing serial Nos. 3 to 8 and 10 to 19 are concerned, the aforesaid documents had been lying in the Record room of the Old Court Building of the sub-Judge, Jaipur and due to some misconception, the petitioner could not get any inspection of the said documents but from the affidavit-in-opposition, it appears that such documents may be available for inspection by requisitioning the said documents from the court of the Sub-Judge, Jaipur. It further appears that although the statements of three witnesses relied on by the prosecution for drawing the chargesheet against the petitioner had not been supplied to the petitioner despite demands made therefore and although one of the documents relied on by the prosecution in drawing the chargesheet against the petitioner could not be made available for inspection of the petitioner because of the misplacement of the said document as referred to hereinbefore, by the impugned memo it was directed that the oral inquiry would be held on 6th to 10th of August, 1973 and witnesses would be examined on the said dates and if the inquiry would not be concluded within the aforesaid dates the inquiry would continue from day to day to day until the same was concluded.

(3.) MR. Gupta the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that tinder the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)Rules it is incumbent for the Inquiring officer and/or the Government to supply the copies of the statements of witnesses and the documents on the basis of which the chargesheet had been framed by the Government against the petitioner. Mr. Gupta further submits that the inquiring authority and/or the department was bound to supply such statement of witnesses and/or to give inspection of such documents so as to enable the petitioner to prepare his defence in the said inquiry proceeding and to effectively cross-examine the witnesses proposed to be examined by the prosecution and to lead evidences on his behalf. Mr. Gupta contended that in the instant case it is quite clear and evident that the statement of three witnesses proposed to be examined by the prosecution against the petitioner in the departmental inquiry have not been supplied to the petitioner. Further, a document referred to in annexure 3 to the chargesheet being a letter of the Station Master, Nadbai, was not made available to the petitioner for inspection on the ground that the said document was misplaced. Mr. Gupta also points out that large number of documents called for by the petitioner from the custody of the Government for the purpose of his defence were also not yet made available to the petitioner for inspection but in spite of such facts, the Inquiring Officer was preceding to continue the departmental inquiry proceeding and start examination of witnesses to serious loss and prejudice of the petitioner. Mr. Gupta submitted that the statement of the witnesses and the document referred to in annexures 3 and 4 to the chargesheet from the basis on which the chargesheet was drawn against the petitioner and until and unless inspection of the documents referred to in the said annexures are given to the petitioner and the copies of the statement of all the witnesses referred to in the said annexure 4 are supplied to the petitioner, the departmental proceeding cannot continue and any attempt to continue the departmental proceeding without furnishing such statements of the witnesses and without giving inspection of the documents referred to annexure 3 will amount to violation of the statutory Rules framed for such departmental inquiry under article 309 of the Constitution of India and also violation of the principles of natural justice. In support of his contention Mr. Gupta relied on a decision of this Court made in the case of Collector of Customs v. Biswanath Mukherjee, reported in (1974) C. L. J. 251. In the said decision a large number of decisions of this Court and other courts, including Supreme Court of india, were considered and it was held that violation of Rule 14 sub-rule (8)of the said Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)Rules amounted to denial of reasonable opportunity to defend the delinquent officer and as such, such violation vitiated the departmental inquiry proceeding.