PETITIONER:
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, K.D. COLLEGE
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SHAMBHU SARAN PANDEY
DATE OF JUDGMENT28/10/1994
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
VENKATACHALA N. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC (1) 404 JT 1995 (1) 270
1994 SCALE (4)1082
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Admittedly, the respondent acted as a principal of the
appellant’s Institution. The charge levelled against the
respondent was that he had misappropriated certain funds
belonging to the Institution. Therefore, on
+ From the Judgment and Order dated 5-2-1993 of the High
Court of Allahabad in CMWP No.11542 of 1983
405
22-3-1991 a charge-sheet was given to the respondent, after
appointing an enquiry officer. The respondent had given the
reply on 13-4-1981 to the charge-sheet. At the earliest, he
wanted inspection of the documents mentioned in the charge-
sheet. Admittedly, neither the documents had been supplied
nor an opportunity of inspection had been given to the
respondent. Instead, the enquiry officer in his letter
dated 18-5-1981 had given the reply stating that since the
respondent had already given the reply to the chargesheet
item-wise, he was at liberty to inspect the documents at the
time of final arguments on 7-6-1981. From time to time, the
enquiry was postponed. Ultimately, the respondent did not
participate in the enquiry. Consequently, the enquiry
officer had submitted his report on 9-5-1982. Based on that
report, on 23-6-1982 the show-cause notice as to why he
should not be dismissed from service was given to the
respondent. The respondent had not submitted his
explanation. However, he requested the Committee to convene
a meeting in which he desired to submit his explanation.
But there being no provision to give hearing to an employee
in the meeting of the Committee, the same was not given to
the respondent. The appropriate resolution has been passed
by the appellant on 22-9-1982 to dismiss the respondent from
service, subject to its approval by the Vice-Chancellor and
the Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor in his proceedings
dated 27-1-1983 and the Chancellor in his proceedings dated
12-8-1983 had given their approval under the relevant
provisions of the U.P. Universities Act. Thereafter the
appellant dismissed the respondent from service.
3. The respondent challenged the order of dismissal in WP
No. 11542 of 1983 in the High Court at Allahabad. Pending
its disposal the respondent retired on reaching the age of
superannuation on 12-12-1992. It would appear that the
respondent was reappointed till the end of academic year as
per rules and on the expiry of the academic year he stood
superannuated according to rules w.e.f. 30-6-1993. The
judgment was rendered on 5-2-1993 setting aside the orders
of dismissal and leaving open the holding of fresh enquiry,
if necessary. This appeal by special leave has been filed
on 3-5-1993.
4. It is contended by Shri Raju Ramachandran, the learned
counsel for the appellant that the High Court was not right
in its conclusion that the documents required by the
respondent were not supplied nor is there any denial of
opportunity to the respondent to examine his own witnesses.
The respondent himself adopted dilatory tactics and he did
not cooperate in the conduct of the enquiry. He did not ask
the enquiry officer for an opportunity to examine the
witness on his behalf. The question of hearing him by the
Committee did not arise inasmuch as there is no such
provision in the byelaws of the society or the rules.
Therefore, there was no violation of principles of natural
justice, on the facts of this case. We have heard the
learned counsel for the respondent also.
5. On the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that
at the earliest the respondent sought for the inspection of
documents mentioned in the charge-sheet and relied on by the
appellant. It is settled law that after the
406
charge-sheet with necessary particulars, the specific
averments in respect of the charge shall be made. If the
department or the management seeks to rely on any documents
in proof of the charge, the principles of natural justice
require that such copies of those documents need to be
supplied to the delinquent. If the documents are voluminous
and cannot be supplied to the delinquent, an opportunity has
got to be given to him for inspection of the documents. It
would be open to the delinquent to obtain appropriate
extracts at his own expense. If that opportunity was not
given, it would violate the principles of natural justice.
At the enquiry, if the delinquent seeks to support his
defence with reference to any of the documents in the
custody of the management or the department, then the
documents either may be summoned or copies thereof may be
given at his request and cost of the delinquent. If he
seeks to cross-examine the witnesses examined in proof of
the charge he should be given the opportunity to cross-
examine him. In case he wants to examine his witness or
himself to rebut the charge, that opportunity should be
given. In this case, at the earliest, the delinquent sought
for inspection of the documents. It is now admitted in the
affidavits filed in this Court and in the letter written by
the enquiry officer, that some of the documents were seized
by the police after the murder of the Manager of the
appellant-institution on 31-7-1980 for investigation. In
that case the respondent was also one of the accused charged
for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 120-B
IPC. It is now an admitted fact that in Sessions Trial No.
228 of 1981 dated 31-7-1986 he was convicted for the said
offence and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
It would appear that he filed an appeal in the High Court
and bail was granted to him.
6. It is stated in the letter written by the enquiry
officer that inspection of documents would be permitted at
the time of final hearing. That obviously is an erroneous
procedure followed by the enquiry officer. In the first
instance he should be given the opportunity for inspection
and thereafter conduct the enquiry and then hear the
delinquent at the time of conclusion of his enquiry. In
this case that procedure was not adopted. Therefore the
procedure in conducting the enquiry adopted is clearly in
violation of the principles of natural justice.
Accordingly, we agree with the High Court, though for
different reasons, in the setting aside of the order of
dismissal passed by the management as approved by the Vice-
Chancellor and Chancellor on the respective dates referred
to hereinbefore.
7. As observed by the High Court, it would be open to the
appellant to conduct an enquiry afresh after supplying the
documents and to give an opportunity to the respondent to
inspect the documents and then take appropriate action
according to law. Depending upon the result of the enquiry,
the respondent has since been superannuated, his pensionary
claims and other benefits are to be granted to him.
Depending upon the fresh enquiry, the question of payment of
back wages would arise and the management would take
appropriate decision thereon. The appellant should conduct
and complete enquiry within a period of six months from the
date of the receipt of this order. It is needless to
mention that the respondent should
407
cooperate in the enquiry to be conducted. In case he adopts
dilatory tactics, a notice in that behalf be given before
forfeiting his right to participate in the enquiry from that
stage and to follow the procedure in conducting the enquiry
and to pass appropriate orders on the result of the enquiry.
8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.