SMT. INDRANI BAI versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 608 · Decided: 21-04-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
A 
SMT. INDRANI BAI 
t 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
APRIL 21, 1994 
r
I 
B 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
\. 
r 
Service law: Civil Service-Disciplinary Enquiry-Rules of Natural Jus-
lice-Where employee doubted impartiality of enquiry and represented at the 
c 
earliest for change of Enquiry Officer, held, request should have been acceded 
ta-Failure to reopen ex parte proceedings and to allow employee to cross-ex-
amine employer's witnesses already examined and to give him an opportunity 
to adduce evidence in rebuttaf-Amount to violation of principles of natural 
justice andfair play-Cons~tution of Indiir-Artic/es 14, 21 and 311 (2)-Ad-
ministrative Law. 
D 
A disciplinary enquiry was instituted against an employee (since 
\. 
• 
deceased) on a charge of attempt to commit theft. The employee alleged 
' 
bias against the Enquiry Officer and represented to the higher authorities 
for a change in the Enquiry Officer. This request was not acceded to, and 
be was directed to participate in the enquiry. The enquiry was being 
_, 
E 
• 
proceeded with ex parte. The employee thereafter appeared before the 
Enquiry Officer and sought an opportunity to recall the witnesses already 
•
examined by the employer for cross-examination, and also to examine 
himself and bis witnesses in rebuttal. However, instead of giving him such 
an opportunity, the Enquiry Officer directed him to submit a written brief. 
F The employee.did not do so. Therefore, the order of dismissal from service 
l 
•
was passed, which was confirmed in appeal. 
I-•
In the meantime, the employee died. The prayer of bis widow for 
pension and appointment on compassionate grounds was turned down by 
G 
the authorities on the grounds that be bad been dismissed from service. 
She thereafter filed an Application under the Administrative Tribunals Act 
•
1985 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, which was 
dismissed on the ground of multiplicity of causes of action. She thereupon 
~
appealed to this Court by Special Leaves. 
. ..L ""1~ 
H 
Allowing the Appeal, this Court 
608 
r
INDRANIBAI (SMT.) v. u.o.i. 
609 
.... 
HELD : 1. When the employee, who had entertained a donbt abont A 
the Impartiality of the enquiry officer made a representation at the earliest · 
to change the Enquiry Officer, the authorities shonld have acceded to the 
request and appointed another Enquiry Officer, other than'the one whose 
objectivity was doubted. Unfortunately this was not done. [6U-E-FJ 
2. Despite the directions issued by the higher authorities the Enquiry B 
Officer directed the delinquent to submit written brief. In other words be 
proceeded from the stage where be last closed the proceedings. That was 
not the spirit of the order. of the Director General. Thus it is a clear case 
of violation of principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer was 
obviously expected to recall the ex parte order and to give the delinquent c 
an opportunity to cross-examjne the witnesses already examined and to 
adduce bis evidence In rebuttal. However, the Enquiry Officer did not 
adopt the said procedure which would have been just; fair and reasonable. 
The delinquent had not been afforded a fair opportunity, much less a 
reasonable opportunity to defend himself. That has resulted in violation D 
of the principle of natural justice and fair play offending Articles 14, 21 
and 31(2) of the Constitution. The orders of dismissal as confirmed by the 
appellate authority are accordingly quashed. (611-D-H, 612-A) 
3. The Respondents are directed to pay the appellant pension accord· 
ing to the Rules and to pay to the appellant the full salary payable to the E 
deceased from \he date of bis suspension till the date of bis superannuation 
or the date preceding bis death, whichever is earlier with all consequential 
benefits, after deducting subsistance allowance already paid. [612-B-C) 
4. The Respondents are directed to consider the case of the appellant F 
for suitable appointment to any post for which she .may be eligible, for 
• 
rehabilitation on compassionate grounds. [612-A-B) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3962 of 
1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.4.90 of the Central Ad-
G 
ministrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur in 0.A. No. 85 of 1990. 
Saojay Kunur and R.N. Keshwaoi for the Appellaot. 
-r 
Kailash Vasdev and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondents. 
H 
610 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The following Order of 

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