SHADI LAL GUPTA versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 637 · Decided: 07-03-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SHADI LAL GUPTA 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
March 7, l 973 
637 
[A. ALAGIRISWAMI, I. D. DUA AND C. A. 
VAIDIALHiGAM JJ.J 
Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1952-Rule 8-
Appellant charge sheeted for disobedience to superiors and ft~r negligence 
of duty-Personal hearing was given' to him but no copy of the enquiry 
officer's report given 1-0 appellant-whether the Rule was ritiated and the 
principle of natural justice violated. 
Appellant was a Clerk in the Treasury at Ludhiana. He filod a suit for 
three different reliefs to which only one that now survives is regarding the 
order withholding his increment for one year with cumulati\·e effect. On 
I(}ll-61 he was charged sheeted on the ground that he was disobedient 
to his superior and negligent in the discharge of his duties and ·J. few specific 
instances of his carelessness and negligence were mentioned in the charge· 
sheet. 
Thereafter the appe11ant submitted. his explanation and a personal 
hearing was also given to him by the authorities. 
The appellant com
4 
plained that he was not given any opportunity to adduce any evidence in 
defence and no prosecution witnesses were examined in his presence. The 
contentions of the appel~ant are that (i) by the failure to give him a copy 
of the report df the Treasury Officer who made a local inquiry, and taking 
it into consideration behind his back, he has been prejudiced and 
(ii) 
Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1952 
has been contravened. 
Rule 8 provides, inter alia, that no order for censurei \\"ithholding of 
increments, recovery from pay of any pecuniary Joss to the Govt., shall 
be passed imposing a penalty on a Govt. Servant, unless he has been given 
an adequate opportunity of making any representation that he may desire 
to make, and such representation has been taken 
into consideratign. 
Dismissing the· appeal. 
HELD : (i) Under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment 
and Appeal) Rules 1952, the only requrement is that the officer 
con-
cerned should be given an adequate opportunity of making any represen-
tation th.at he may desire to make. 
There is no provision for examina-
tion of witnesses, cross examination of witnesses and furnishing a copy 
of the report of the enquiry officer etc. 
He need not be told about the 
punishment which is sought to be imposed on him, either at the time the 
chargesheet was .served on him or at any other stage. In the present case, 
these \Vas, no failure to 'foilow the relevant rules, which only require that 
the officer concerned should have an opportunity of making a. repreSenta-
tion in respect of the char~es made against him and the officer. coricerned 
had an opportunity to 1nake a representation and his representation was 
considered by tlie authorities in taking Jisc~plinary action against him. 
(ii) The rules of natural justice have also not been Yiolated in 
the 
present case. 
The requirements of the rules of natural justice arc :-(a) 
the person accµsed should know the nature of the accusation made; (b) 
that he should be given an opportu"ity to state his case; and (iii) that 
the tribunal should act in good faith Byrne & another v. Kinematograp/1 
Rentery Society Ltd .. [1958) A.E.R. 579. referred to. 
[646 A·Bl 
638 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1973) 3 S.C.R. 
(iii) In any proceedings even by a domestic tribunal. the rules 
of 
natural justice would have to be observed; but the principles to be appli-
ed would depend upon the circuinstances of each case. 
(iv) };-, the present case, the principle of natural justice had not been 
violated because the appellant \Vas not given an opportunity to make a 
representation in respect of the Treasury Officer's 
report. 
When the 
authorities \\'anted a local enquiry to be made, it \\.-as with a view to check 
up with records the representation made by the appellant. The report 
does not ac!J one single instance more than what is already found in the 
allegations. 
If the report had contained anv material extraneous to the 
charges aga;:ist the appellant, then· only he· could be said to have been 
prejudil.-ed. 
The report merely sets up the evidence in support of the 
allegations 
There'fore, the appellant has not been 
prejudiced by the 
Tr~asury Officer's report being taken into consideration before the order 
of punishn1ent was passed against the petitoner. 
[6..t6 H: 647 A-BJ 
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1527 of 
1971. 
A

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