1000 TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -214
THE LISTED DOCUMENTS
838. A very instructive case on the subject is Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India decided on 15.5.1986 and reported in AIR 1986 SC 2118; (1986)3 SCC 229. In this case, where the appellant was a Supdt. of Police, the controversy centred around whether there had been violation of principles of natural justice by reason of: :
(i) failure to supply copies of statements of witnesses recorded ex parte at the pre-inquiry stage; and
(ii) the failure to supply copies of the documents on which reliance was placed by the Department to establish the charges before the enquiry commenced.
On the first issue, the Supreme Court held that the appellant was entitled to full copies of statements of witnesses recorded during investigation or preliminary enquiry
On the second issue, the Supreme Court again held that the appellant was entitled to full copies of the listed documents, i.e., the documents on which reliance was being placed by the department to prove the charges. The Supreme Court also did not approve the approach of the Department in not allowing his request that he may be allowed help of his P.A. to take extracts during inspection of listed documents.
839. Consequently, the Apex Court held that it had resulted in failure of natural justice and vitiated the departmental proceedings. The Court quashed the order of dismissal from service passed in 1967 and also directed that no further proceedings be held, as the appellant had retired in superannuation in 1983.
840. The following quotation from the judgment will be found to be very instructive: “When a Government servant is facing a disciplinary proceeding, he is entitled to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges against him in an effective manner . And no one facing a departmental inquiry can effectively meet the charges unless the copies of the relevant statements and documents to be used against him are made available to him. In the absence of such copies, how can the concerned employee prepare his defence, cross-examine the witnesses, and point out the inconsistencies with a view to show that the allegations are incredible. It is difficult to comprehend why the disciplinary authority assumed an intransigent posture and refused to furnish the copies notwithstanding the specific request made by the appellant in this behalf. Perhaps the disciplinary authority made it a prestige issue. If only the disciplinary authority had asked itself the question: “What is the harm in making available the material?” and weighs the pros and cons, the disciplinary authority could not reasonably have adopted such a rigid and adamant attitude.”
841. It is hoped that the disciplinary authorities/inquiry officers shall take message of the Supreme Court and rather than taking the posture “Why should I allow" adopt the attitude “What is the harm in making available the material?” A rigid and adamant attitude must be avoided and the approach of the disciplinary authority should be guided by reasonableness.
Post a Comment