STATE OF BOMBAY (NOW MAHARASHTRA) versus NARUL LATIF KHAN

Citation: [1965] 3 S.C.R. 135 · Decided: 22-02-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
STATE OF BOMBAY (NOW MAHARASHTRA) 
v. 
NARUL LATIF KHAN 
February 22, 1965 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND 
V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 
135 
Departmental Enquiry-Charge-sheeted officer desiring to pro-
duce oral evidence-Refusal to record such evidence on the ground 
that the case against the officer rested on documents alo:ie--S'lfc~ 
refusal whether amounts to denial of reasonable opportumty--C~vt! 
Serv'ices <Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules r. 55- ConsPtu-
tion of India, Art. 311(2). 
The appellant who was in the service of a State Government 
asked for long leave which was refused. Subsequently he asked for 
ten days' leave which was granted. On the expiry of the leave period 
he did not join duty on the ground that he was seriously ill. The 
Government refused to accept the plea and instituted a depart-
mental inquiry against him. The respondent wanted to produce oral 
evidence in support of his plea including the evidence of doctors 
who treated him, but the enquiry officer refused to record oral evi-
dence on the ground that the case against the appellant rested on 
ciocuments alone and therefore no oral evidence was necessary. On 
the report of the enquiry officer the State Government ordered the 
compulsory retirement of the respondent. The latter filed a suit in 
which he claimed inter alia that the constitutional provision in 
Art. 311 had been contravened. The trial judge held against him but 
the High Court decided in his favour. The State Government appeal· 
ed to the Supreme Court with certificate. 
The narrow question to which the Court had to address itself 
was whether it was obligatory on the enquiry officer to give a reason· 
able opportunity to the respondent to lead oral evidence and examine 
his doctors. 
HELD: (i) The Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) 
Rules provide in r. 55 that if the charge-sheeted Officer so desires or 
if the authority concerned so directs an oral enquiry shall be held. 
This provision is mandatory and is based on considerations of natural 
justice and fair play. Therefore when the respondent expressed his 
desire to the enquiry officer that he wanted to lead evidence in sup-
port of his plea, it was obligatory on the enquiry officer to have fixed 
a date for recording such oral evidence and give due intimation to 
the respondent in that behalf. p 43 D-Fl 
(ii) Though an enquiry officer would be justified in conducting 
the enquiry in such a way that its proceedings are not allowed to 
be unduly or deliberately prolonged, it would be impossible to accept 
the 
ar~ument that if the charge-sheeted officer wants to lead 
oral eviden.ce the enquiry officer can say that having regard to the 
charges agams_t the officer he would not 
hold any oral enquiry 
r143 Hl 
(iii) In the _present case the witnesses whom the respondent 
wanted to examme ~ould. undoubtedly have given relevant evidence. 
He wanted to examme his doctors but the enquiry officer failed to 
!five him an opportunity to do so. That introduced .a fatal infirmity 
m the whole ~nqmry as the respondent had not been given a reason-
able opportunity to defend himself within the meeting of Art. 311(2) . 
. The appeal of the State Government had therefore to be dis-
missed. P44 A, Cl 
136 
SUPREME 
COURT 
REPORTS• 
(1965] 3 S.O.R. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
1040! 
A 
63. 
C. K. Daphtary, Attorney General, M. S. K. Sastri and R. H. 
Dhebar, for the appellant. 
C. B. Agarwala and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by-
B 
Gajendragadkar, C.J. The short question of Jaw which arises 
in this appeal is whether the appellant, the State of Bombay (now 
Maha_rashtra), shows that its predecessor State of Madhya Pradesh 
(heremaHer called the Government) had given a reasonable 
opportunity to the respondent, Narul Latif Khan, to defend him-
sel~ ~efore it passed the final order on June 6, 1952 compulsorily C 
retm~g hllll under Article 353 of the Civil Service Regulations. 
By this order, the respondent was compulsorily retired and in relaxa-
tion of Art. 353, the Government was pleased to allow 
the respondent to draw a compassionate allowance equal to the 
pension which would have been admissible to him had he been 
D 
invalidated. 
This order was challenged by the respondent by filing a suit 
in the Court of the first Additional District Judge at Nagpur. In 
his plaint, the respondent alleged that the imp

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