H. C. SARIN versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1976] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 39 · Decided: 14-04-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
-
• 
-
l 
H. C. SARIN 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
April 14, 1976 
39 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] 
Adn1ini,~trative Law-DPpartn1ental enquiry-Principles of natural iustice. 
l11dian Railways Establishment Code, Vol. I r. 1730.-Right of delinquent 
officer to services of CNl advocate .or anothtr Railway official. 
The appellant was a railway official of the Indian Railways, in London. In 
connection ·with the purchase of stock from a West German fi~·m three charges 
were framed against him that he obtained illegal gratification from the proprietor 
of that firm and Jhat he had used official influence for personal advancement. 
A board ()f e.nqµiry was set up by the Government of India and the enquiry was 
held in London and West Germany. The board held that two of the charges 
were proved and the appellant was dismissed from service. He filed a writ peti~ 
tion in the High Court which was dismissed. 
Jn qppeal to this Court, it was contended that the enquiry was held in grOS6 
violation of the principles of natural justice 8nd requirements of Art. 311 of the 
Constitution; that the proprietor of the German firm made the false accusation 
against him ih order to escape paymentl of damages:; that the chairman of the 
board of enquiry was biased against him, and that the appellant was denied the 
services o±.' 
~L professional lawyer or a rail\vay official of his choice from India 
for conduc:ing his defence and for cross-examining the proprietor of the German 
Firm. 
Dismis~:ng the appeal, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
HEW : t 1) The correspondence that wassed between the board and the 
E 
appellant .:.hows tha~ there. was no violation of any principle of natural justice, 
that the appellant waS given inspection of all necessary documents; that he was 
given adequate and 
~asona.ble opportunity to dei'end himself und that the 
allegation that the ch~irman of the board was biased against the appellant was 
totally false. 
[46 B-C;] 
(2) No principle of natural justice was violated in not making available to 
the appeUant the services of a prof~sional lawyer or of another railway official 
from India. 
[51 BJ 
(a) The enquiry was conducted in accordance with r. 1730 of ·the Indian 
Ratlways .Establishment Code, Vo1. I, which 
1prescribes the procedure for hold· 
ing a departmental .enquiry. 
There is nothing in •he rule about engagement of 
a lawyer but the note appended to the
1 rlile provides· that in. a departmental en-
quiry the accmed may, if he so desires, be accompanied by another railway 
officer, provided he is approved by the competent authority, and provided that 
the perSon so nominated shall not be a professional lawyer. 
[50 F-Gl 
(b) The notes are promulgated with the rules. Their function is to provide 
procedure, to control discretion, and to fill up gaps when rules are silent. Under 
•he rule, the appellant was not entitled to the services of a professional lawyer. 
[51 F.G] 
TarQ Singh etc. etc. v. State of Raiasthan ·and ors., [1975] 3. SCR 1002, fol~ 
Jowed. 
G 
(c) E\·en if the note is treated as an executive instr_uction at)d not part of 
H 
the rule itself, there i• ru:i. reason why the authority should not follow tho note. 
The authority \vould still have a discretion in the matter. 
Tn the present case, 
the question involved, v.;as a simple' one whether he had -taken money from the 
A 
40 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1976] SUPPLEMENTARY 
proprietor. of the German firm. No prejudice was caused to the appellant, because 
the propnetor was only- a lawyer in name but was actively in business and the 
services of a professional lawyer were not necessary to cros'Y-e--xaminc. him. 
[51 BJ 
(d) The appel1ant v/anted an officer from India to assist him in the conduc.'l 
of his defence. 
Under the rule, he was not entitled, as a matter of righ~, to 
have the services of any railway officer stationed in India. 
He was in fact giyen 
B 
a choice to choose either on~ stationed in London or on the Cohtinent. 
[51 G~H] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
C. L. Sabro111ania1n v. Collector of Customs, Cochin. [19721 3 SCH. 485, 
explained and distinguished. 
R. v. Secretary of State for the Honie Deparlfnent ex parte Mughal [1973] 
All England Law Reports·, 796, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1097 of 1970. 
Appeal from the Judgment and order dated the 25th April 1967 
of the Delhi High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 106-D 
of 
1964 
M. N. Phadke, S. Balakrishnan 
and 
N. M. Ghatate, 

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