370
STATE OF PUNJAB
v.
BHAGAT RAM
October 9, 1974
[A. N. RAY, CJ. K. K. MATHEW AND A. ALAGIRISWAMI, JJ.j
Constitution of India, 1950-Art. 311-Supp/y of synopsis of evidence of wit·
nesses exami11ed during invest{gation-Whetf1er satisfies the requirement of reasonable
opportunity.
Iu a suit for declaration that his dismissal was illegal the respondent co11ten·
ded that copies of statements of witnesses to be examined at the departmental
enquiry were not supplied to him in spite of his request, The trial court held that no
reasonable opportunity was given to the respondent. The High Court up held the
decis.ion of tho trial court.
On appeal to this Court it. was contended by the appellant that a synopsis of the
evidence was adequate to acquaint the respondent to cross-examine the witnesses
at the inc;iuiry.
Dismissini: the appeal,
A
c
HELD : It i~ unjust and unfair to deny the Government servant 'copiei of
statements of witnesse11 examined during investigation and produced at the mquiry
in support of the charges levelled against him. A synopsis does not satisfy the re-
D
quirements of giving the Government servant a reasonable opportunity of showing
cause against the action proposed to be taken •. !371 D-EJ
C1v1L AppELLATE JuR1so:or10N : Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1970.
Appeal from the Ji,idgment & Decree dated the 14th November,
1968 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in R.F.A. Nos. 154 &
186 of 1964.
£
0. P. Sharma, for th(~ appellant.
Hardayal Hardey and P, P. Juneja, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the: Court was delivered by
RAY, C.J. This appeal by certificate turns on the question as to
whether tbe State gave the respondent a reasonable opportunity ·as
contemplated by Article 311 of the Constitution.
The respondent was a Sub Divisional Officer. The State ordered
a deputm~ntal enquiry against the respondent.
The respondent filed a suit for a declaration that the dismissal of
the respondent was illegal. One of <he grounds challenging the order
of dismissal was that copies of starements recorded by the police in
the course of investigation of the witnesses proposed to be examined
at the departmental enquiry were not supplied by the State to the res-
pondent in. spite of the ~equest ill that behalf.
The tri?-1 Court found that copies of the statements of the witnesses
as recorded by the Vigilance Department during the preliminary en-
quiry were not supplied to the respondent but only the synopsis was
given. The trial Court, therefore, held that no reasonable oppor-
tunity was given to the respondent.
:r
G
H
A
c
D
E
PUNJAB v. BHAGAT RAM (Ray, C.J.)
371
The High Court upheld the decision.
The State contended that the respondent Vvas 1101 entitled to get
copies pf statements. The reasoning of the State was that the re~rc 11·
<1ent 'was given the opportunity to cro>s examine the witnesses ar.d .
during the cross-examination the respondent would h~.ve the crrc r·
tumty of confronting the witnesses with the statements. · It is ccn-
tended that the synor.sis was adequate to acquaint the resrcrdent
with the gist of the evidence.
The meaning of a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against
the action proposed to be taken is that the Government servant is
afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against charges
onwhich inquiry is held. The Government servanf 5hould be given
an opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence. He
can do so when he is told what the charges against him are. He can
do so by cross examining the witnes5es productd against him. The
object of supplying statements is that the Government servant will be
able to refer to the previous statements of the witnesses proposed to
be examil1J)d against the Government servant. Unless the .1tatements
are given to the Government servant he will not be able to have an
effective and useful cross-examination.
It is unjust and unfair to deny the Government servant copies of ·
statements of witnesses examined during investigation and produced
. at the inquiry in support of the charges levelled against the Govern-
ment servant. A synopsis does not satisfy the requirements of giving
the Government servant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause
against the action proposed to be taken.
For these reasons the appeal is dismissed. The State will pay costs
.to the respondent.
P.B.R.
Appeal dismi;sed.
9·--2SSSupCI 7.S
Lex