LexSTATE OF MYSORE versus S. S. MAKAPUR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• • • • -- -- ---~- -· · 2 s.c.R. SUPREME OOURT REPORTS 943 STA'.r.E OF MYSO~E v. S. S. :111AKAPUR ·(B. P. SINHA, . c. J., P. B. 'GA.JENDRAGADKAR; K. N. WANCHOO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR · and T. L.VENKATARAllfA AIYAR, JJ.) · Governmenl Bervanl-'Enrruiry-Evidenc.s of witnesses in preliminary investigation brought on record~Witnesses tenc:lered ·.for croBS-examination-Prindple of natural justice if 1atisfiea- B;nnbay Police Manual, s. 545(8). . . _ . . After an enquiry held under s. 545 of the Bombay Police Manual the pay of the respondent was· reduced from.125/· to Rs. 120/· per month. During the enquiry the witnesses who had been examined at the preliminary investigation wer.: ·re- called and their previous statements were brought on record and after putting few question to them they were tendered 'for cross·examination by the respondent and in fact •hat they ·were cross~examined in detail. The respondents appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police was not only dismissed but the officer in exercise of his powers in revision ordered his dismissal., The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of My;ore challenging the validity of the order of dismissal on the ground inter alia that the enquiry by the 'Deputy Superintendent of Police was conducted in disregard of the rules of natural justice. The High Court agreed with the above view and the order of dismissal was set aside. The High Court further held that s. 545(8) of the Bombay Police Manual was bad as it contravened principles of natural justice. The Mysore Government came up in appeal by special leave to the $upreme Court. H ela; that the purpose of an txamination in the presence of a party against whom an enquiry is made, is sufficiently achieved, when a witness who has give·n a priof. statement -- is recalled, th'it statement is put to him, and ·_made known to the opposite party, and the witness is tendered for cross exa- tion by that party: Held, also, that tribunals exercising quasi-judicial func.; , dons arc not courts and that therefore they are not bound to f,ollow ~he procedure prr•cril:rd for trial of actions in cGµrts • ' . • • • 1 '1962 May3. . ' 11/U SU.1 oJ M,sor1 •• S. B. M alcapu• dj)'ar J. 944 · SUPREME OOURT REPORTS (1963] nor arc they bound by 1trict rules of evidence. They can unlike courts, obtain all informat~on material for the points under the cnquiryfrom all sources, and through all channels, without being fettered by rules and procedure, which govern ; proceedings in court. The only obligation which the law casts on them is that they should not act on any information which they may receive unless they put it to the party agaimt whom it is to be used and give him a fair opportunity to explain it. What is a fair opportunity depend on the facu circumstances of each case but where such an opportunity hu been given, the proceedings arc not open to attack on the ground that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with •he procedure followed in courts. Held further, that cl. 8 of s. 545 of the Bombay Police Manual i; not bad as contravening the rules of the natural ..... justice. Uni-On of Jnaia v. T. R. Verma, (1958] S.C.R. 499, Btak oJ Bombay v. GajananMalui<kv, (1955) J.L.R. Bom. 915, .Boanl of Educalion v. Rice, fl911J A.C. 179, Lor.alGovern.....U Boartlv. Arlitfge, [1915] A.C. 120, New Prakaah Tmnaporl ComJ><lny Ltd. v. ll'eic Suwarna Tronaport Company Ltd., (1957] S.C.R. 98 and Phv./bari Tr.a Ealale v. It• Workmen, [1960J-l S.C.R. 32. Crvn. APPELLATE TURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4(10 of 1960. Appeal by spl Jial leave from the judgment and order dated March 26, 19511, of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No. 41 of 1958, H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicil,or General of India, R. Gopalakrishnan and P. D. Menoo, for the appellants. K. R. Choudhri, for the respondent. 1962. May 3. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENK.ATARAMA AIYAR, J.-This is an appeal by special leave ap:ainst the judgment of the High Court of Mysore in a Writ Petition filed by respondent challenging the validity of an order of diemiBBa) diite<l July 5, 1966 made by the Deputy Inepeotor • , 2 S.O.R. SUPREME OOUR'l' REPORTS 945 General of Police, Belgaum. The respondent' entered service in the Police Department as a constable in the District of Bharwar in 1940 and was at the material dates a sub-inspector of Police. On a com- p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.