CHANDRAMA TEWARI versus UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER, EASTERN RAILWAYS

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1102 · Decided: 18-11-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
CHAND RAMA TEW ARI 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER, 
EASTERN RAILWAYS 
NOVEMBER 18, 1987 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] 
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. 
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 punish-
ment of dismissal was illegal and unconstitutional mainly on the ground 
that the enquiry had been held in vi11,Iation 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 tbe 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, 
1102 
't -
. °i' .. 
y 
-
~ 
:;.-
-
CHANDRAMA TEWARI v. U.0.1. 
1103 
HELD: It is not necessary that each and every document mu~t he 
A 
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 
B 
against the government servant, no exception can be taken to the valid-
ity 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 C 
against him. (llOSG-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 D 
officer in recording the findings against the appellant. Therefore, the 
paper No. S 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 
E 
India and Ors., (1986) 3 SCC 229; relied upon by the appellant. 
F 
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. 
G 
M,K. Ramamurthi, Syed Ali Ahm~d, Mrs. Jayashree Ahmad, 
Syed Tanweer Ahmad and Mohan Pandey for the Appellant. 
V.C. Mahajan, Hemani Sharma and C.V. Sobba Rao for the 
Respondent. 
H 
A 
1104 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] 1 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court wa

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.