LexMUMTAZ HUSSAIN ANSARI versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A.
B
D
E
\
H
,
"
244
MUMTAZ HUSSAIN ANSARI
v.
STATE OF U.P. &-t\NR.
March 21, 1984 .
(S. MUllTAZA,FAZAL ALI, A. VARADARAJAN' AND
'
'
RANGANATH MISRA, JJ) '
T•avelling Allowances 'Rules (Financial f!andbook Volume Ill-Rule:
20A(J~-Int:rpreiation of.
.
.
I
.
G.O. No.. 419.7 R/V/fIA-SOO( / 46)68'-lnterpreWion of-Government·
11JUJf pay expen3es of 1naterial defence witnesses.
'\Natural iustice_;_Asking delinquent ojfi:er lo. deposit expenses of 1nateria!
dtfence wi1nesses-Vio[ates_p'rinc;pfes of natural jujtice.
In.a dePartmental inquiry coildU~ted by the Second respondent. U.P.
Administriltive Tribunal into certain charges
lev~lled against the ai)pellant a-
Deputy Superintend.ent of PQ!icc, the 'tribunal disnlissed'the application of
tbe .appellant praYing for summQoiog 8 witnesses for being examined in his
defence. The Tribunal relied .UP Jn rule 20A( l ). of 'the Travelling Allowanee•
Rules (Financial Handbook Vol9mo II[) and observed !hat the appellant -
had to deposit the expen~es of the wita!sses, 'Yho were private p.erSons,. if
be wanted to have "them ex1mined i11 ·his
d~fence within· a
sp~cified time.
T.he appeUant. did no.t deposit the ar.nou:it and the witn~sse~ were not sum-
moned. Pursuant to the finding or- the Tribunal the appellRnt' was remOved
from service: The appellant filed a writ.Pe.ti.lion in the·Higb CcUrt conten-
ding that in view of G.o. No .. 4197 R/VlllA-500(146)/6 l travel\lng
aIJOwance and diet money or witnesses to be exam·in~d before the T-ribu niil
must haVe been paid by the State GOvernment but he was asked to· deposit
· a sum of·Rs ... 900 fo·r. the· witnesses- being sum·moaed and this was in viola-·
tion of tho releva'.l~ provision relating to conduct of pro:eediag .before" the
Tribunal. The High Court dismissed the Writ petition in lilnine. In this
; appeal.the question was wh~ther on.- this account there was non·compliance ·
with the principles.of naturaljus~ice.
-
,
Allowing the appeal,
HELD: There is no compliance with the principles of natural_ justk:o ,
intbiscase. [251C]_
·
·
'
Rule 20A(l) of the Travolling A\io Yances Rules (Financial Handbook
Volume IID is __ not qllite clear, for it d·oes not say who should bea~·t_hc
i!.Xpenses initially or w_be:ther the ·reference to be -·made' by 'the inquiring;_
authority· uader claa~e {c) should b3 .mid~ b~f ore or after the examination
of the witnesses. Claa;o (b) of this slib .. -rule seems lo have been oonsidel'elf
•
••
•
\'
•
;
•'
•.. '
'
M.H. ANSARI 1·; U.P. STATB (Varadarajan, J.)
243
utisfied in tho presont case as tho Tribunal had decided to summon tho
A
"Witnesses provided the amount was deposited by tho appellant a• directed.
[2498-C]
G.O. No. 4197 ~/VIIIA-SOO(l.46) which )las evidently intended to
.clarify Rule 20A of the Travelling Rules makes it clear that responsibility
'for payment of travelling allowance to defence witnoase• produced in depart-
B
irneotal inquiry conduc'ted under s. 7 of the Police Act is Of-the Go_vefnmenf
.and- tbat,-if a witness -has been permittcd'to be prOduced in defence it is
:!lOt · open to the inquiry officer to lay down a condition that his travelling
.. xpenses should be first deposited by the delinquent officer before the witness
:is examined. [2SOG·H)
Io the present easel the Tribunal h'\s considered the witnesses to be
0
fnaterial but has insisted on the appellant depositing initially .a sum of Rs.
'900 for the travelling expense and daily allowan'ce of the witnesses -with an
<>bligation to make good any shortfall ;a· those allowlbces and loss of
.professional. iDcome -Of tho witnesses. Tbei respondent-Stat<:: did not COD··
tend that this G.O. does not apply to the· case of tho appellant. Moreover,
1he appellant was under suspension from .11-12·1967 and there b nothing on
record to show tlrat he was financially sou'nd and in a poSition. tCr deposit
D
·the sum of Rs. 900 and pay any fu<ther amount which may be .required to
meet any shortfall in the travelling and daily allo:anccs and the Josi of' -
.professional income of the 8 more witnesses whom ho wanted to be examined
-00 his side. Tbe failure to cause the pro.ductian of those 'witnesses at the
-expense Or the Governmedl ·might have caused prejudice to th~ appellant for
·.it canno~ be predicated what conclusion the TribU'nal would haVe reached in
Tegard to charges I to 3 if the evidence of those witnesses was available for
B'
its consideration. [2Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.