ANIL BIHARI SARAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was serving in the Government of Bihar as Commandant of the Bihar Military Police. On the 27th November 1957, orders were issued by the Inspector General of Police (Annexure B) placing him under suspension on the basis of certain serious charges of corruption that were made against him. On the 3rd February, 1998 (Annexure D), the Government of Bihar framed eight specific charges against the petitioner and directed that a regular enquiry should be held by Shri P.K.J. Menon, I. A. S., then Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division. Shri Menon took some preliminary steps, but he was subsequently transferred from the place and then the Government of Bihar by their order dated 25th October, 1958 (Annexure I) directed Shri (now Justice) Ram Ratna Singh, then Secretary to Government in the Law Department and Legal Remembrancer, to conduct the departmental proceedings. That Officer conducted the proceedings on a very elaborate scale and maintained a regular order-sheet as is maintained in civil suits recording in detail what happened on every one of the dates to which the proceedings were adjourned. He allowed the Department and the petitioner to be represented by advocates. Both parties were allowed to adduce evidence, oral and documentary. The proceedings before him terminated on 31-5-1960 after hearing arguments on both sides. He submitted his report to Government on the 31st October, 1960 (Annexure 2 N) holding the petitioner guilty of charges 5 and 7 which deal with allegations of corruption. As regards charge No. 1 and certain items in respect of charges 3 and 4, he exonerated the petitioner of the charge of corruption but found him guilty of gross negligence, lack of supervision and showing unusual zeal in favour of a party. The Government by their letter dated the 20th April, 196.1 (Annexure 2-0) called upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service in view of the finding of the enquiring officer. A copy of the report of the enquiring officer was also sent to him. The petitioner showed cause (Annexure 2-P), but this was not accepted as satisfactory and he was eventually dismissed from service on 18-6-1963 (Annexure 2-Q). In the order of dismissal the Government merely stated that they had accepted the finding of the enquiring officer and that the explanation given by the petitioner was found to be wholly unsatisfactory. The Government have not given reasons separately so far as the proof or otherwise of the various charges framed against the petitioner.

(2.) The extremely limited jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to interfere with the order of dismissal passed by the competent authority against a public servant is well known. As pointed out in State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723, it is not the function of this Court to sit like an appellate authority to re-examine the evidence and come to its own view as regards the correctness of the findings. The high standard of proof required in a Criminal Case for proving the charges beyond reasonable doubt does not apply to departmental proceedings. So long as there is some evidence to support the findings, this Court's Jurisdiction to interfere is clearly ousted. This Court can only consider whether the constitutional guarantee given to a public servant by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and the rules regulating the holding of departmental enquiry against a public servant [Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 I have been fully complied with. So long as the enquiry is properly conducted and the rules of natural justice are complied with the departmental authorities are the sole judges of facts and "if there be some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution". As regards the principles of natural Justice which should be complied with by the departmental authorities, I may refer to State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chintaman Sadashiva, AIR 1961 SC 1623. A delinquent public servant must get a reasonable opportunity to defend himself and for that purpose must be given reasonable facilities for cross-examining the witnesses who may depose against him and also to adduce evidence on his behalf. No material should be relied on against him unless he is given an opportunity of explaining the same. The right to cross-examine is a very valuable right and if it appears that effective exercise of this right has not been given to a public servant, it must be held that the rules of natural justice wore not complied with.

(3.) Mr. Basudeva Prasad for the petitioner was fully conscious of the law on the subject and hence confined his attack against the order of dismissal to the following three grounds: