COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT versus SHAMBU SARAN PANDEY AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 269 · Decided: 28-10-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT 
A 
v. 
SHAMBU SARAN PANDEY AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 28, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY ANDN. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
B 
SERVICE LAW- Administrative Law- Natural Justice- Enquiry 
Proceedings- Procedure- Filing of charge sheet- Prayer for inspection 
of documents- In first instance delinquent to be given opportunity for 
inspection and thereafter conduct enquiry- Delinquent to be heard at time 
of conclusion of his enquiry. 
C 
The respondent, Principal of appellant's Institution was charged 
for misappropriating certain funds belonging to the institution. 
Therefore, a charge-sheet was given to the respondent, after appointing 
an enquiry officer. Respondent replied to the charge-sheet and wanted 
inspection of the documents mentioned in the charge sheet. The enquiry D 
officer stated that since the respondent had already given the reply to 
the charge sheet, he was at liberty to inspect the documents at the time 
of final arguments. The respondent did not participate in the enquiry 
and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report, on the basis of which a 
show cause notice as to why he should not be dismissed from service 
was issued to the respondent. The respondent requested the Committee E 
to convene .a meeting in which he desired to submit his explanation. 
But, the same was not given to the respondent. Thereafter with the 
approval of the Vice Chancellor and the Chancellor, the appellant 
dismissed the respondent from service. 
The respondent challenged the order of dismissal before .the High F 
Court. The order of dismissal was set aside by the High Court leaving 
open the holding of fresh enquiry, if necessary. Hence this appeal 
The appellants denied that the documents required by the 
respondent were not supplied nor was there any denial of opportunity G 
to the respondent to examine his own witnesses; that the respondent did 
not co-operate in the conduct of the enquiry and he did not as~ the 
enquiry ofhcer for an opportunity to examine the witness on his behalf; 
that the question of hearing him by the Committee did. not arise in the 
absence of any provision in the bye-laws of the Society or. the rules, and 
as such there was not violation of principles of natural justice. 
H 
269 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
270 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. 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. 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 the 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 them. In case he wants to examine his witness or himself 
to rebut the charge, that opportunity should be given. (272-C-E) 
1.2. In the instant cnse, at the earliest, the delinqueht sought for 
inspection of the documents. It was stated by the enquiry officer that 
inspection of documents would be given 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 and the enquiry conducted was clearly in 
violation of the principles of natural justice. However, it wo-.ld be open 
to the appellant to conduct an enquiry afresh and complete it within a 
period of six months. (272-F, H, 273- A, D) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7674 of 
1994. 
From the Judgment and order dated 52.93 of the High tourt of 
Allahabad in CMWP No. 11542/83. 
Raju Ramachandran, Prashant Kumar and Pradeep Misra for the 
Appellant. 
· 
Sunil Gupta and H.K. Puri for the Respondent

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