LexR. C. SHARMA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
580
R. C. SHARMA
. -
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
May 6. 1976
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.l
Service niatter-Departmental proceedings-When could be declared null and
void.
Procedure-Time Iiniit in delivering judgnient after hcarinz argu1nent.s<-
If prescribed by C.P.C.
After holding a departmental enquiry on certain charges of contravention
of Government Servants' Conduct Rules, the appellant was reduced in rank.
His suit for a declaration that the impugned action was void and inoperative
was dismissed. The High Court dismissed his appeal.
'
On appeal, it was contended that the departmental enquiry was vitiated
on account of material irregularities, and that, as a result of excessive delay,.
between the date of hearing ahd delivery of judgn1ent by the High Cuurt, it did
not deal with a number of submissions made by him and thereby caused pre""
judice.
Dismissing the appeal to this Court,
HELD: (l){a) The question whether the appellant was given a reason-
able opportunity to lead evidence and was sufficiently heard or hot is largely
a question of fact. It is only when an opportunity denied is of such a naturei
that the denial contravenes mandatory provision \of law or a rule Of batural
justice that it could vitiate the whole departmental trial.
Prejudice to the
Government servant
from an alleged violation of a rule must be
proved.
[583C]
{b) The plea that the appellant had been subjected to trial on allegations.
which had been the subject-matter of previous ehquiries overlooks that no
~
charge was framedl as a result of any previous enquiry. If an enquiry was
F
G
H
held at a particular stage, possibly to determine whether regular proceedings
should be drawn up or started, it did not debar a departmental trial. [5830]
State of Assam & Anr. v. J. N. Roy Biswas. AIR 1975 SC 2277 and R. T.
Rangacliari v. Secretary of State. AIR 1937 PC 27, held inapplicable.
(c) It was not shown whether ahy evidence which the appellant tried to
produce was really wrongly excluded and at what stage and for what reasons~
All these are questions of fact which should be raised in the departmental trial.
After that if there was any patent error a writ petition lay.
[584A1
(d) A suit challenging a departn1ental proceeding cahnot be treated as aa
appeal from the findings in those proceedings or against a punishment inflicted
upon the Government servant even if these were erroneous. A question which
could affect the result in a civil suit has to be of such' a nature that it goes
to the root of the jurisdiction that the conduct of the departmental trial illegally
and vitiates the result. It is only if the departmental proceeding is null and
void that a plaintiff could obtain the reliefs he had asked for.
[584E·F]
Smt. Ui/am Bai v. State of U.P. & Anr. [1963] I S.C.R. 778 (iiJ_ 835, 836,
referred to.
(e) Unless a paint could be raised on beha1f of an appellant which is capa ..
ble of vitiating the departmental proceedings there could be 'no declaration that
the departmental proceedings were null and void.
[585H]
'
•
\
)
' -
•
-.
'
R. C. SHARMA v. UNION (Beg, J.)
581
{2) The Civil Procedure Code di0e$ not provide a time limit for the period
between the hearing of arguments and the delivery of a judgment. Nevertheless,
an unreasonable delay between the hearing of arguments and delivery of a judg-
ment, unless explained by exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, is highly
undesirable. even when written arguments were submitted. It is not unlikely
that some points which the litiga11t considered important might have escaped
notice.
But, what is more important is that litigants ntust have complete con-
fidence in the results of litigation. This confidence tends to be shaken if there
is excessive delay between hearing of arguments and delivery of judgments.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1155 of 1971.
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
17-11-1969 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No. 178/61).
S. C. Manchanda, Sadhu Singh,
R. N. Kapoor, Mrs.
Nirmala
Gupta, Uu.al Singh and J. M. Khanna for the appellant.
A
B
c
Gobind Das, P. P. Rao, Girish Chandra and S. P. Nayar for the
D
xespondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BEG, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and
,orde,· of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court given by it on
E
17th November, Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.