STATE OF U.P. versus SHATRUGHAN LAL AND ANR.

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 939 · Decided: 30-07-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

' t-
STATE OF U.P. 
A 
v. 
SHA TRUGHAN LAL AND ANR. 
JULY 30, 1998 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND G.B. PATTANAIK JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Departmental Enquiry-Supply of documents-Relied on-In Charge-
sheet-Copies of-Not supplied to delinquent employee-Effect of-Held C 
Delinquent employee must be informed in writing that he has the right to 
inspect the documents-Lapse in this regard would vitiate the enquiry. 
Departmental Enquiry-Supply of documents-Statements of witnesses 
during preliminary enquiry-Copies of Not supplied to delinquent employee-
Effect of-Held : Non-supply of copies of statements deprives the delinquent D 
employee of an effective opportunity of hearing-Further, copies of statements 
must be supplied where witnesses are proposed to be examined at the enquiry. 
Departmental Enquiry-Hearing-Irregularities in-Prejudice to 
delinquent employee in defending himself-Copies of statements of the witnesses 
recorded during preliminary enquiry not supplied to delinquent employee -
E 
Effect of-Held : Employer failed to establish that non-supply of the said 
copies of statements did not cause any prejudice to the delinquent emp/oyee-
Hence, effective opportunity of hearing not given to him-Therefore, enquiry 
vitiated. 
The respondent was dismissed from Government service after a regular F 
departmental enquiry. The respondent filed a petition before the State Public 
Services Tribunal challenging the order of his dismissal. The Tribunal 
allowed the petition on the grounds that the copies of documents relied 
on in the charge sheet and the statements of witnesses recorded in the 
preliminary enquiry were not supplied to the respondent. The High Court G 
summarily dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-State. Hence this 
appeaL 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that copies of the documents 
were not supplied to the respondent as the respondent had every right to 
inspect the same at any time. 
H 
939 
940 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. If the appellant did not intend to give copies of the documents 
to the respondent, it should have been indicated to the respondent in writing 
that he may inspect those documents. Merely saying that the respondent could 
have inspected the documents at any time is not enough. He has to be informed 
B that the documents, of which the copies were asked for by him may be 
inspected. The access to record must be assured to him. (943-8] 
2. One of the principles of natural justice is that a person against whom 
~ 
an action is proposed to .be taken has to be given an opportunity of hearing. 
This opportunity has to be an effective opportunity and not a mere pretence. 
C In departmental proceedings where charge-sheet is issued and the documents 
which are proposed to be utilised against that person are indicated in the 
charge sheet but copies thereof are not supplied to him in spite of his request, 
and he is, at the same time, called upon to submit his reply, it cannot be said 
that an effective opportunity to defend was provided to him. Copies of the 
D statements of witnesses recorded during the preliminary enquiry must be 
supplied to the delinquent employee particularly if those witnesses are proposed 
to be examined at the departmental trial. [941-F-G; 942-C] 
Chandram Tewari v. Union of India, [1987] Supp. SCC 518; Kashinath 
Dikshita v. Union of India, [1986] 3 SCC 229; State of U.P. v. Mohd. Sharif, 
E [1982] 2 SCC 376 and High Court of Punjab & Haryana v. Amrik Singh, 
[1995] Supp. 1 SCC 321, relied on. 
3. The Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the 
principles of natural justice were violated and the respondent was not afforded 
an effective opportunity of hearing, particularly as the appellant failed to 
F establish that non-supply of the copies of statements recorded during 
preliminary enquiry had not caused any prejudice to the respondent in 
defending himself. [943-D) 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2469 of 
1982. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.2.82 of the Allahabad High 
Court in W.P. No. 5062 of 198 I. 
T. N. Singh and R. B. Misra for the Appellant. 
H 
Dharam Bir Vohra for the Respondents. 
-( 
STATE v. S. LAL (S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J.] 
941 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
SAGHIR AHMAD, J. The respondent who was a Lekhpal in the service 
of the State Government, was dismissed from service after a regular departmental 
inquiry. The order

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