Dharam Singh vs The State of Haryana and others

Ajit Singh Bains, J.—This petitioner was a Patwari working in Halqa Taoru Thesil Nuh, district Gurgaon. He was charge sheeted by the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon (respondent No. 3) on 29th April, 1969, During the enquiry proceedings. Statement of one Miss Kiran Prem was recorded behind the back of the petitioner. However, on the basis of the enquiry report, his 7 increments were withheld. He filed appeal against the stoppage of 7 increments to the Commissioner, Ambala Division, which was dismissed. He went up in revision before the Financial Commissioner, which also met the same fate. It is against these orders that he has filed the present petition.

The only point convassed by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the statement of one material witness, namely, Miss Kiran Prem was recorded behind the back of the petitioner and he was not given any opportunity to cross-exmine her.

Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is averred in the written statement that on 1st June, 1970; the prosecution wit ness was present but the petitioner absented himself intentionally and that the Enquiry Officer was left with no other alternative but to record her evidence and that the statement of Miss Kiran Prem was recorded at Palwal on 1st June, 1970. For his absence on the said date the petitioner has given his explanation that he had to appear in a criminal court at Gurgaon He also made an application on 16th June, 1970 to recall the said prosecution witness for cross examination, but that application was rejected. The factum of submitting application by the petitioner on 16th June, 1970 is admitted by the respondents in para 8 of the written statement. Thus, I am of the view that reasonable opportunity was not given to the petitioner. It is settled law that in departmental enquiries reasonable opportunity of being heard must be given to the public servant concerned and every material must be put to the delinqent official, on which the reliance is placed by the prosecution. Departmental inquiry is not a mere formality just to take a disciplinary action against a public servant. Departmental inquiries are serious proceeding as a consequence of which a public servant can lose his service also. Therefore, every care must be taken by the Department to afford reasonable opportunity to the public servant concerned. Mrs. Goel relied upon the Supreme Court authority reported as R.C. Sharma v. Union of India 1976 S.L.W.R. 439. But this authority does not help the state. In this authority it is observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the question whether the appellant was given a reasonable opportunity to lead evidence and to be heard or not is largely a question of fact and that it is only when an opportunity denied is of such a nature that the denial controvenes a mandatory provision of law or a rule of natural justice that it could vitiate the whole departmental trial. In of the present case the rule of natural Justice is violated as the evidence of one material witness, namely, Miss Kiran Prem, was recorded in the absence of the petitioner and in spite of his application for re-summoing her, she was not resummoned and the application was rejected. Thus, the aforesaid authority rather helps the petitioner. Even when there were no Rules and Constitution, the law was that under the rule of natural justice, reasonable opportunity was to be given to such person against whom the disciplinary action was proposed to be taken. The rule of natural justice is an old concept right from the ancient times.

For the forgoing reasons this petition is allowed with costs and the impugned orders are quashed Counsel fee Rs. 500/-.