K. L. SHINDE versus STATE OF MYSORE

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 913 · Decided: 26-03-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

K. L. SHINDE 
11. 
STATE OF MYSORE 
March 26, 1976 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGII, JJ.J 
913 
Constitution-Article 311-Domestic inquiry-Reasonable cpportunit'i:._ of 
,effectively defending-Dismissal pursuant to departmental proceedings-Whether 
Court can sit in appeal-Whether Evidence Act applies to departmental pro-
ceedings. 
The appellant was a Police Constable. SOme persons were convicted for 
transporting smuggled illicit liquor under section 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibi~ 
A 
B 
tion Act. The Police Sub Inspector submitted a Confidential report on that 
incident to the Superintendent of Police and pointed out that some Police 
C 
'". 
Constables including the appellant wen; indulging in smugglihg illicit liquor. 
I 
The Superintendeht of Police directed the P.S.I. to record the statements of 
three constables, Akki, Warn.an and.Nishikant. The Police Sub Inspector, there-
fore, recorded the statements of those constables in the presence of the Super-
intendent of Police. The statements of Akki and Nishikan,t disclosed their 
complicity as well as complicity of six other Police constables including the 
appellant. D.S.P. ordered the S.D.P.0. t" hold a departmental enquiry against 
them. They were all transferred from Belgaum and directed not to leave 
D 
their new station without the permission of the D.S.P. except for purpoSes of' 
or in connectioh with1 departmental enquiry. The appellant did not plead guilty. 
The Enquiry Officer held enquiry. A number of witnesses were examined both 
by the prosecution and the defence. The Enquiry Officer made a report to 
the Superintendent of Police that the charge: against the appeUaht \Vas 
not 
established. He, however, recommended that the appellant should be adminis-
tered a severe warning since he was guilty of misconduct and dereliction of 
duty. The Superintendent of Police did hot agree with the finding; of the 
' 
Enquiry Officer and directed him to examine. Police Constable Akki ¥.'h05e state-
E 
rnent had been recorded before the enquiry was ordered against the ap-pellant. 
Akki was accordingly examihed but be resiled fron11 his earlier statement. The 
Enquiry Officer agaih submitted a further report and stn1ck to his former re-
commendation regarding administiratfun of severe warning to the appellant. 
The Superintendent of Police disagreed with the. report of the Enquiry Officer 
and found that there was: sufficient evidehce against the appellant to prove 
his guilt. 
A.ccordingly, he issued a notice to the appellant callirtg upon him 
to show cause why he should not be dismissed from Service. 
Not feeling 
satisfied with the explanation tendered by t}Je appellant the Superintendent of 
F 
Police passed an order dismissing the appellant from service. An appeal filed 
to the D.I.G. was unsuccessful and so was a revision to the 'Government. 
't 
Thereafter, the appellant filed a suit challenging the order of dismissal and 
-claiming arrears of nay. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. The Lower 
Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the Trial Court. The High Court 
nllowed the second appeal filed by the State. 
In an appeal by Special Leave, the appellant contended : 
( 1) The appellant was deprived of a reasonable opportunity of defending 
himself during the course of the departmental enquiry. He was not permitted 
to remain at Belgaum during the period of his, suspension. Evidence of some 
-of the prosecution witnesses was recorded in his absence. 
(2) The impugned judgment and decree cannot be sustained as there is no 
cogent legal evidence to establish the charge against the appellant. 
DismissinQ! the appeal, 
HELD : (I ) Whether a delinquent had a reasonable opportunity of effective· 
1y defending himself is a question of fact depending on cfrcumstances of each 
G 
.H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
914 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1976] 3 S.C.R. 
case and no hard and fast rule can be laid in that behalf. In the instant case,. 
the order restricting his movement was not such as can b~. said to have depriv-
ed him of reasonable opportunity of making his defence. 
The order did not 
"-
· ._ 
place any embargo on the appellant going to Belgaum for the purpose of an~ 
in connection with the departmental enquiry. In fact, the appellant fully parti-
cipated in the enquiry held at that place. 
He also made full use of the assis-
tance of a policeman called Police friend. provided to him to conduct the 
defence on his behalf. He was furnished with the state

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