Committee
of Management, Kisan Degree College Vs. Shambhu Saran Pandey & Ors
[1994] INSC 531 (20 October 1994)
(K.
Ramaswamy & N. Venkatachala, Jj.)
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
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 March 22, 1991 a charge-sheet was given to the
respondent, after appointing an enquiry officer. The respondent had given the
reply on April 13, 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 charge sheet item-wise, he was at
liberty to inspect the documents at the time of final arguments on June 7,
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 9.5.82. 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 explana- tion. 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 W.P. No. 11542/83 in the High
Court at Allahabad.Pending its disposal the respondent retired on reaching the
age of superannuation on 272 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 bye-laws
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 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 3 1.7.80 for
investigation. In that case the respondent was also one of the accused charged
for the offences under Section 302 read with Sec.120-B I.P.C. It is now an
admitted fact that in Sessions Trial No.228/81 dated 31.7.86 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 given at the time of final hearing. That obviously is an erroneous 273
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 ap- propriate 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
co-operate 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 appro- priate orders on the result of the enquiry.
8. The
appeal is accordingly disposed of No costs.
Back
