SAWAI SINGH versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [1986] 2 S.C.R. 957 · Decided: 02-05-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
957 
SAWAI SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF RA.JAS111AN 
MAY 2, 1986 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.] 
!. Termination of services - Nature of charge vague and 
~ifficult for any accused to meet 
the charge and also 
unsupported by evidence, absence of opportunity for cross-
examination non-examination of handwriting expert etc. - Order 
of termination of service is bad in law. 
2. Burden of proof a serious offence -
Evidence of 
\ll._andwriting expert necessary but dead - The prosecution should 
,-,n another handwriting expert to corroborate the charge -
Penal Code S.463 read with Section 45 Evidence Act. 
3. Natural justice principle of -
Applicability to 
Service cases, explained. 
The appellant who was working as Superintendent, Sheep 
"""and Wool, Nagaur was appointed as a Returning Officer to 
conduct Panchayat elections at Sardi in Panchayat Samiti 
Ladnun held in the month of December, 1960. On the 2nd of July 
1965, the Government of Rajasthan informed the appellant that 
an inquiry was proposed to be held against him for showing 
undue favour to one of the contesting candidate's by wrongly 
..1trejecting 
another 
candidate's 
nomination 
paper 
after 
collllitting forgery by effecting erasion of the the word 
"Panch" on the nomination paper. The Additional Colllllissioner 
"~for departmental inquiry held the enquiry and on the basis of 
his report dated 27th March, 1967, the Government issued a 
show cause notice on 3rd October 1968 and after receipt of the 
reply cancelled it and issued a fresh show cause notice to 
which the appellant again gave an elaborate reply. However by 
an order dated 5.4.1971 the Government directed the removal of 
the appellant from service. The Writ Petition filed by the 
iappellant challenging the orders of termination was dismissed 
su1111arily. The writ appeal also met the same fate. Hence the 
appeal by special leave. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
958 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19861 2 s.c.R. 
HELD: 1.1. If the charges are vague and it is very 
difficult for any accused to meet the charges fairly and the~ 
evidence adduced perfunctory and did not at all bring home the 
guilt of the accused is entitled to be exonerated of the 
offence charged with. Non-allegation by the delinquent either 
before the enquiry officer or before the High Court that the 
B 
charges were vague does not by itself exonerate the department 
to bring home the charges. Though a departmental enquiry is 
not like a criminal trial, the charges involving consequences~ 
of termination of service llllSt be specific. 965 C-F] 
Suresh Oiandra Otaltrabarty v. State of West Bengal, 
-
c 
(1971] 3 S.C.R. I; and State of Andhra Pradesh v. s. Sree Ram 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Rao, (1964] 3 S.C.R. 25 referred to. 
.../ 
1. 2 Having regard to the consequences of the offences ' 
with which the deliquent officer was charged and having regar~ 
to the nature of charge and the evidence of hand-writing 
expert and the absence of opportunity for cross-emamination 
and the conflicting nature of evidence of Chaturbhuj and 
nature of evidence given by Ji wan Dass, in the instant case, 
the 
report 
of the 
Inquiry Officer 
and 
the consequent 
termination 
order 
passed 
by 
the 
Government 
cannot 
be 
sustained. (966 D-E] 
2. In a case where an offence under section 463 Indian 
Penal Code is involved and the allegation is sought to be 
proved 
by the evidence of handwriting expert 
and 
the 
handwriting expert was not available for cross-examination on 
the ground that at that time he was dead, then it was ~ 
necessary on the part of the department to adduce evidence to -
call another handwriting expert to corroborate their charge. 
In the absence of such discharge of the burden of proof, the l_ _ 
Court may draw an adverse inference supported by otfter i~ 
evidence against the prosecution. (964 B-<:] 
3.1 There is no such rule that sn offence is not 
established unless it is proved beyond doubt. But in a 
departmental enquiry entailing consequences like loss of job 
which now-a-days means loss of livelihood, there llllSt be fair 
play in action, in respect of an order involving adverse or \.-
penal consequences against an employee and there llllSt be 
investigations to the charges consistent with the requirement 
-
' 
SAWAI SINGH v. STATE [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.] 
959 
pf the situation in accordance with the principles of natural 
·~ustice in so far as these are applicable in a particular 
situati

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