http://JUDIS.NIC.

IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER, EASTERN RAILWAYS

DATE OF JUDGMENT18/11/1987

BENCH:
SINGH, K.N. (J)
BENCH:
SINGH, K.N. (J)
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)

CITATION:
1988 AIR 117 1988 SCR (1)1102
1987 SCC Supl. 518 JT 1987 (4) 398
1987 SCALE (2)1058
CITATOR INFO :
E&R 1989 SC 885 (14)

ACT:
Disciplinary proceedings resulting in dismissal from
service-Whether null and void as a result of failure of the
Enquiry Officer to comply with the principles of natural
justice.

HEADNOTE:
%
Coal lying at the Pusauli Railway Station was
fraudulently removed by some person, giving out his name as
Shambhu Tiwari, a coal contractor. A criminal case was
registered, but on account of absence of reliable evidence
final report was submitted. During the preliminary enquiry
held by the Department, it was found that Chandrama Tewari,
the appellant, who was posted as a fireman at Moghulsarai in
the Northern Railway, had removed the coal posing himself as
Shambhu Tiwari. A charge-sheet was issued to the appellant.
An Enquiry Officer was appointed before whom evidence was
recorded. The appellant was afforded full opportunity of
cross-examining the witnesses. The Enquiry Officer held the
appellant guilty of the charges framed against him. The
punishing authority accepted the report of the enquiry
officer and passed orders, dismissing the appellant from
service. The appellant filed a civil suit for a declaration
that the punishment of dismissal was illegal and
unconstitutional mainly on the ground that the enquiry had
been held in violation of the principles of natural justice
and he was denied reasonable opportunity of defence,
inasmuch as a copy of paper No. 5, mentioned in the Memo of
charges, had not been supplied to him.
The trial court decreed the suit. The decree of the
trial court was confirmed in appeal by the District Judge.
On a second appeal by the Union of India, the High Court set
aside the decisions of the subordinate courts, holding that
the appellant had been afforded reasonable opportunity of
defence and there had been no violation of the principles of
natural justice in the enquiry. The appellant appealed to
this Court against the order of the High Court.
Dismissing the appeal, the court,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7
1103
^
HELD: It is not necessary that each and every document
must be supplied to the delinquent government servant facing
charges; instead, only material and relevant documents are
necessary to be supplied to him. If a document even though
mentioned in the Memo of charges is not relevant to the
charges or if it is not referred to or relied upon by the
enquiry officer or the punishing authority in holding the
charges proved against the government servant, no exception
can be taken to the validity of the proceedings or the order
passed on the ground of non-supply of the copy of the order.
If a document is not used against the party charged, the
ground of violation of principles of natural justice cannot
be successfully raised. Violation of the principles of
natural justice arises only when a document, a copy of which
may not have been supplied to the party charged, is used in
recording findings of guilt against him. [1105G-H; 1106A-B]
Copy of paper No. 5, mentioned in the charge-sheet, was
not supplied to the appellant and he was not permitted to
inspect the same. But that document was not considered, or
relied upon by the enquiry officer in recording the findings
against the appellant. Therefore, the paper No. 5 was not a
material or relevant document, and denial of a copy of that
document did not prejudice the appellant and there was no
violation of the principles of natural justice involved in
the case. The enquiry was fair. [1109D-E]
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chintaman, AIR 1961 SC 1623;
Trilokinath v. Union of India and Ors., [1967] SLR 759;
State of Assam & Anr. v. Mahendra Kumar Das & Ors., [1971] 1
SCR 87; State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram, [1975] 2 SCR 370;
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Sharif, AIR 1982 SC 937 and
Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India and Ors., [1986] 3 SCC
229; relied upon by the appellant.

JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 146 of
1981.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.5.1979 of the
Allahabad High Court in S.A. No. 512 of 1975.
M.K. Ramamurthi, Syed Ali Ahmad, Mrs. Jayashree Ahmad,
Syed Tanweer Ahmad and Mohan Pandey for the Appellant.
V.C. Mahajan, Hemant Sharma and C.V. Subba Rao for the
Respondent.
1104
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SINGH, J. The short question which arises in this
appeal is whether the disciplinary proceedings taken against
the appellant resulting in his dismissal are null and void
as the Enquiry Officer failed to comply with the principles
of natural justice in holding the enquiry. The question
relating to the non-compliance of principles of natural
justice is founded on the grievance that a copy of paper No.
5 although mentioned in the memo of charges was not supplied
to the appellant, and that he was not permitted to inspect
the same. A learned single Judge of the High Court has
answered the question against the appellant. Hence this
appeal.
The appellant was posted as fireman at Moghulsarai in
Northern Railway in May, 1964. On 28th May 1964 coal lying
at Pusauli Station was fraudulently removed by some person
giving out his name as Shambhu Tiwari. A criminal case was
registered, but on account of absence of reliable evidence,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7
a final report was submitted. It appears that during the
preliminary enquiry held by the Department it was found that
Chandrama Tewari, the appellant had removed the coal lying
at Pusauli Station posing himself as Shambhu Tiwari, a coal
contractor. On completion of the preliminary enquiry a
charge sheet was issued to the appellant on 6.2.1967. The
appellant filed reply to the charges denying the same. An
Enquiry Officer was appointed before whom evidence was
recorded and the appellant was afforded full opportunity of
cross-examining the witnesses. The Enquiry Officer submitted
his report holding the appellant guilty of charges framed
against him. The punishing authority accepted the enquiry
report and issued orders on 27.6.1969 dismissing the
appellant from the service. The appellant filed a civil suit
in the Trial Court for a declaration that the punishment of
dismissal awarded to him was illegal and unconstitutional
mainly on the ground that the enquiry had been held in
violation of the principles of natural justice and he was
denied reasonable opportunity of defence. A number of other
grounds were also raised in the suit which need not be
adverted as the controversy now is confined to the question
of violation of the principles of natural justice alone. The
trial court decreed the appellant’s suit on 31.1.1974. The
decree of the trial court was confirmed in appeal by the
District Judge by his order dated 2.11.1974. On a second
appeal being filed by the Union of India the High Court set
aside the judgment and decree of the subordinate courts on
the findings that the appellant had been afforded reasonable
opportunity of defence and there was no violation of any
principles of natural justice in the enquiry.
1105
Learned counsel for the appellant Shri M.K. Ramamurthy
contended that the memo of charges issued to the appellant
expressly mentioned that paper No. 5 was proposed to be
relied by the Department against the appellant but in spite
of demand being made by the appellant a copy of that
document was not supplied to him nor was he permitted to
inspect the same. In the absence of that document the
appellant was handicapped in cross-examining Shri A.C. Das,
Dy. S.P., S.P.E. He further urged that failure to supply the
copy of paper No. 5 was in violation of the principles of
natural justice rendering the proceedings, resulting in the
order of dismissal as void. He placed reliance on decisions
of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chintaman, AIR
1961 SC 1623; Trilokinath v. Union of India & Ors., [1967]
SLR 759; The State of Assam & Anr. v. Mahendra Kumar Das &
Ors., [1971] 1 SCR 87; State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram, [1975]
2 SCR 370; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Sharif; AIR 1982
SC 937 and Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India & Ors.,
[1986] 3 SCC 229.
We have given our anxious consideration to the
submissions made on behalf of the appellant and we have
further considered the aforesaid authorities referred to by
the learned counsel for the appellant but we do not find any
merit in the appellant’s submissions to justify interference
with the High Court’s judgment. Article 311 of the
Constitution requires that reasonable opportunity of defence
must be afforded to a government servant before he is
awarded major punishment of dismissal. It further
contemplates that disciplinary enquiry must be held in
accordance with the Rules in a just and fair manner. The
procedure at the enquiry must be consistent with the
principles of natural justice. Principles of natural justice
require that the copy of the document if any relied upon
against the party charged should be given to him and he
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7
should be afforded opportunity to cross-examine the
witnesses and to produce his own witnesses in his defence.
If findings are recorded against the government servant
placing reliance on a document which may not have been
disclosed to him or the copy whereof may not have been
supplied to him during the enquiry when demanded would
contravene principles of natural justice rendering the
enquiry, and the consequential order of punishment illegal
and void. These principles are well settled by a catena of
decisions of this Court. We need not refer to them. However,
it is not necessary that each and every document must be
supplied to the delinquent government servant facing the
charges instead only material and relevant documents are
necessary to be supplied to him. If a document even though
mentioned in the memo of charges is not relevant to the
charges or if it is not referred to or relied upon by the
enquiry officer or the punishing
1106
authority in holding the charges proved against the
government servant, no exception can be taken to the
validity of the proceedings or the order. If the document is
not used against the party charged the ground of violation
of principles of natural justice cannot successfully be
raised. The violation of principles of natural justice
arises only when a document, copy of which may not have been
supplied to the party charged when demanded is used in
recording finding of guilt against him. On a careful
consideration of the authorities cited on behalf of the
appellant we find that the obligation to supply copies of
documents is confined only to material and relevant
documents and the enquiry would be vitiated only if the non-
supply of material and relevant documents when demanded may
have caused prejudice to the delinquent officer.
In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chintaman, the respondent
who was a police officer was dismissed from service on
certain charges. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh quashed
the order of dismissal on the finding that the enquiry was
held in violation of the principles of natural justice in as
much as the statement of witnesses recorded in the
preliminary enquiry were not supplied to the concerned
officer as a result of which he could not effectively cross-
examine the witnesses produced before the enquiry officer.
This Court while upholding the view taken by the High Court,
observed that the departmental enquiries should observe
rules of natural justice. The Court referred to the
observations of Venkatarama Aiyar, J. in Union of India v.
T.R. Verma, [1958] SCR 499 "stating it broadly and without
intending it to be exhaustive it may be observed that rules
of natural justice require that a party should have the
opportunity of adducing all relevant evidence on which he
relies, that the evidence of the opponent should be taken in
his presence, and that he should be given the opportunity of
cross-examining the witnesses examined by that party, and
that no material should be relied on against him without his
being given an opportunity of explaining them". Relying on
the aforesaid observations the Court held that right to
cross-examine witnesses who give evidence against a
delinquent officer is a very valuable right and if effective
exercise of that right is prevented by the enquiry officer
by not giving to officer relevant document to which he is
entitled, the enquiry cannot be said to have been held in
accordance with the principles of natural justice. In
Triloki Nath v. Union of India, it was held that if a public
servant facing enquiry was not supplied copies of documents
it would amount to denial of reasonable opportunity. In that
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7
case the statement of witnesses recorded during the
investigation of the criminal case registered against the
delinquent officer prior to the
1107
departmental proceedings had not been supplied to him, as a
result of which the delinquent officer was prejudiced in his
defence at the enquiry.
In State of Assam and Anr. v. Mahendra Kumar Das &
ors.J dismissal of a police sub-inspector in pursuance of a
disciplinary enquiry held against him had been set aside by
the High Court on the ground that the enquiry officer had
during the course of the enquiry consulted the
Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Branch and had
taken into consideration certain material gathered from the
AntiCorruption Branch, without making the said material
available to the sub-inspector. On appeal by the State of
Assam this Court held that it was improper for an enquiry
officer during the conduct of an enquiry to collect any
material from outside sources and in not making that
material available to the delinquent officer. The Court
observed that if the enquiry officer collects material
behind the back of the delinquent officer and such material
is relied upon by the enquiry officer without being
disclosed to the delinquent officer, the enquiry proceedings
would be vitiated. After making these observations this
Court recorded a finding that the enquiry officer had not
taken into consideration the material contained in the
records of Anti-Corruption Branch, and therefore failure to
supply the material of the AntiCorruption Branch to the
delinquent officer was of no consequence and it could not
vitiate the enquiry. The Court set aside the order of the
High Court on the finding that there had been no violation
of principles of natural justice.
In State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram, copies of statement
of witnesses recorded during investigation and produced at
the disciplinary enquiry in support of the charges framed
against the delinquent officer were not supplied, instead a
synopsis of the statements had been supplied to him. This
Court upheld the order of the High Court on the finding that
it was unjust and unfair to deny the government servant
copies of statement of witnesses recorded during
investigation and produced in support of the charges
levelled against the government servant. In the absence of
the copies of the statement of witnesses the government
servant could not have opportunity of effective and useful
cross-examine of the witnesses produced during the
disciplinary enquiry. The Court observed that synopsis of
statement did not satisfy the requirement of giving the
government servant a reasonable opportunity. Same view was
taken by this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd.
Sharif, as in that case also copies of the statement of
witnesses recorded at the preliminary enquiry were not
furnished to
1108
the delinquent government officer, as a result of which
the delinquent officer could not effectively cross-examine
the witnesses before the enquiry officer.
In Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India & ors., this
Court set aside the order of dismissal of a police officer
on the finding that during the departmental proceedings the
officer concerned was not supplied the copies of statements
made by the witnesses at a pre-enquiry stage and also the
copies of the documents on which reliance was placed in
support of the charges, in spite of specific request being
made by the officer. The Court held that the order of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7
dismissal was violative of Article 311 (2) in as much as the
officer had been denied reasonable opportunity of defending
himself. While setting aside the order of dismissal the
Court observed that whether or not refusal to supply copies
of documents or statements has resulted in prejudice to an
officer facing the departmental enquiry depends on the facts
of each case. After making this observation the Court
examined the circumstances of that case and concluded that
since 38 witnesses were examined against the officer and a
large number of documents were relied upon against him and
the disciplinary authority should have supplied the copies
of the statement of witnesses recorded during the
preliminary enquiry as we as the copies of the documents.
Wherein agreement with the view taken in this decision
It is now well settled that if copies of relevant and
material documents including the statement of witnesses
recorded in the preliminary enquiry or during investigation
are not supplied to the delinquent officer facing the
enquiry and if such documents are relied in holding the
charges proved against the officer, the enquiry would be
vitiated for the violation of principles of natural justice.
Similarly, if the statement of witnesses recorded during the
investigation of a criminal case or in the preliminary
enquiry is not supplied to the delinquent officer, as that
would amount to denial of opportunity of effective cross-
examination. It is difficult to comprehend exhaustively the
facts and circumstances which may lead to violation of
principles of natural justice or denial of reasonable
opportunity of defence. This question must be determined on
the facts and circumstances of each case. While considering
this question it has to be borne in mind that a delinquent
officer is entitled to have copies of material and relevant
documents only which may include the copy of statement of
witnesses recorded during the investigation or preliminary
enquiry or the copy of any other document which may have
been relied in support of the charges. If a document has no
bearing on the charges or if it is not relied by the
1109
enquiry officer to support the charges, or if such document
or material was not necessary for the cross-examination of
witnesses during the enquiry, the officer cannot insist upon
the supply of copies of such documents, as the absence of
copy of such document will not prejudice the delinquent
officer. The decision of the question whether a document is
material or not will depend upon the facts and circumstances
of each case.
In the instant case there is no denying the fact that a
copy of paper No. 5 as mentioned in the charge sheet was not
supplied to the appellant and he was not permitted to
inspect the same. It appears that paper No. 5 was the report
submitted by the Special Police Establishment in respect of
the criminal case of theft of coal, in which final report
had been submitted. After submission of final report in the
criminal case disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the
appellant. Paper No. 5 (the report) was, however, not
considered or relied by the enquiry officer in recording
findings against the appellant. We have perused the copy of
the report of the enquiry officer furnished to the Court by
the appellant but we do not find any reference to paper No.
5 therein. The enquiry officer has not either referred to
nor relied upon that report in recording findings on the
charges framed against the appellant. In this view the
report (paper No. 5) was not a material or relevant document
and denial of copy of that document could not and did not
prejudice the appellant and there was no violation of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7
principles of natural justice. The appellant’s grievance
that in the absence of report he could not effectively
cross-examine Shri A.C. Das, Dy. S.P. Of Special Police
Establishment, the investigating officer, is not
sustainable. A copy of the statement as recorded by the
enquiry officer has been placed before us by the appellant
on a perusal of the same we find that Shri A.C. Das, was
cross-examined at length in detail. His examination-in-chief
is confined to one page while his cross-examination runs
into six full scape typed pages. The appellant has failed to
point out as to how he was prejudiced. In our opinion the
appellant was not handicapped in cross-examining Shri A.C.
Das, his grievance that he was not afforded reasonable
opportunity of defence is without any merit.
In view of the above discussion we hold that the High
Court was right, in holding that the enquiry was fair and
the principles of natural justice had not been violated. The
appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There will be no
order to costs.
S.L. Appeal dismissed.
1110