LexGENERAL MANAGER, EASTERN RAILWAY AND ANOTHER versus JAWALA PROSAD SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
271
GENERAL MANAGER, EASTERN RAILWAY AND
ANOTHER
v.
JA WALA PROSAD SINGH
November 20, 11169
[S. M. SIKRI AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.]
Natural Justice-lnquir,v Con1111illee's duty to s11hn1it report to puniJh-
ing authorily-l.~hange i11 personnel of Inquiry Co1nn1i11ee durinR inquiry
No de novo inquiry but proceedinKJ
continued-Procedure if ''iolr.tes
natural fustiCe.
The Jespondent, a railway servant. was charged with misRappropriation.
An Inquiry Committee of three officers of the Railway was constituted
to inquire into the charges.
After the proceedings had gone on for some
time and some witne-sscs were examined. one of the members of the
inquiry committee was transferred. There was no de novo inquiry and the
proceedings continued with the successor in office. The Inquiry Con1mittee
found the respondent guilty of the charges and submitted its report under
the Discipline and Appeal Rules of the
Indian
Railway
Establishment
Code.
The Disciplina{y Authority considered the
record
of
inquiry,
issued the second show cause notice and thereafter disn1issed the responR
dent from service.
The respondent's appeal to
the
General
t¥1anager
having proved unsuccessful, he challenged the order in a writ petition.
The High Court quashed the order of dismissal on the ground that there
\Vas a violation of the principles of natural justice. because of the change
in the pe'rsonnel of the Inquiry Committee.
In appeal to this Court,
HELD : No known principle, of naturul justice is violatCd when one
nlember of the Inquiry Committee is substituted by another. because. the
change in the personnel even though it ""·as after the
proceedings
h;1d
begun and some evidence was recorded, could not make any difference to
the railway servant.
The members of the Committee cannot recdrd their
findings separately, but must arrive at their conclusion jointly and it i:;
the racord consisting of the documents and the oral evidence which forms
the basis of the report of the Inquiry Committee. Therefore, any in1pres-
sion created by the demeariou'r of a particular witness on the mind of any
member could not affect the conclusion. [275 D-F: 276 A-BJ
Further, under the rules, the duty of the Committee en<ls with the
making of the report. because, it is not
the
puni~hing authority.
·rhc
punishing authOrity is the Disciplinary Authority and the personal im-
pression of a member of the Inquiry Committee cannot possibly affect the
decision of the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority 1nercly
goes by the written record after giving a personal hearing to the railw;.1y
servant if he asks fOr it. and may even revetse the finding of the Inquiry
Committee absolving a railway servant,
and in1pose
a penalty on hin1.
[275 F-GJ
Moreover, it is not uncon1mon, in proceedings before ordinary courts,
for one judge or magistrate to record part of the evidence and fdr his
successor to continue the proceedings and <lispose of the matter, or for
witnesses to be examined on commission and the weight of their evidence
being asscs3cd by a judge who did not have the benefit of watching the
272
SUPREME COURT REPORTS'
[1970] 3 S.C.R.
dc.meanour, or for an appellate court, which does
not
have
such
an
oppdrtunity, to arrive at conclusions of facts on the record of the case.
The appellate court may take note of any comment on the demeanour of
a witness but never guides itself entirely by such a comment. rz76 E-H;
277 A·C]
Union of India v. H. C. Goel, [1964] 4 S.C.R. 718; A.LR. 1964 S.C.
b64, retied on, Gu/lapalli Nageswara Rao v. A. P. Road Transport Corpo-
tion, [1959] Supp. I S.C.R. 319, explained.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1186 (N !
of 1967.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
June 13, 1966 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Origi-
nal Order No. 563 of 1964.
V. A. Seyid Muhammllll and S. P. Nayar, for the appellants.
K. Rajendra Chaudhuri, Kanwal Singh and Kamhalya, for the
respondent.
· The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
,,.
Mitter, J.
The question invoived in this appeal is, whether
the whole proceedings of the Inquiry Committee constituted to
inquire into the charges 0£ misappropriation and handling cash
belonging to Government without authority were vitiated by the
violation of the principles of natural justice with the result that the
order of dismissal passed subsequently on the respondent couldExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.