STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. versus SRI C. S. SHARMA

Citation: [1967] 3 S.C.R. 848 · Decided: 01-05-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. 
l'.· 
SRI C. S. SHARMA 
May 1, 1967 
[M. HlOAYATULLAH AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.) 
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, r . . 55, Suh-
u. (I) and (3)-Difference in nature of enquiries under the two sub-
rules-Enquiry under sub-r. (I) relates to misconduct affecting character 
·Of a Govenunent servant-Full opportunity to defend himself nccessary-
Enquiry vitiated lVhen officer not given opportunity to produce his de-
fence 1vi1nesses. 
The respondent was a Sales-tax Officer under the Uttar Pradesh Gov-
·crnmcnt. 
Inquiries against him in respect of some charges of corrup-
1ion were first made by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales-tax 
who 
examined some witnesses. 
The enquiry 
was then passed on to the 
·Commissioner who neither examined the witnesses against the respon-
dent himself nor gave an opportunity to the respondent, despite 
the 
biter's repeated requests to produce his defence witnesses. 
On orders 
of dismissal being passed after the enquiry the respondent filed a writ 
petition before the High Court which succeeded. The State appealed. 
It was conceded on behalf of the State that the enquiry was under sub· 
r. (I) or r. 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) 
Rule.. The distinction between sub-n. (I) and (3) was considered. 
HELD : The third sub-rule deals wifo the unsuitability of an oflicer 
for the service or with a charge for any specific fault. This fault means 
a fault in the execution of his duties and not a misconduct such as taking 
hribe etc. \vhich are charges of a more serious 
nature affecting 
the 
character of the individual concerned. The 
collocation of the words. 
'any specific fault' or 'on account of unsuitability for service' give 
the 
clue to the distinction between the third sub-rule and the first sub-rule. 
[852B-CJ 
Sub-rule (I) of r. 55 is the general rule for enquiries when the 
conduct of a person is inquited into for misconduct. 
A person cannot 
he charged with criminal conduct without affording him adequate oppor-
tunity to clear his character. If therefore 
the 
procedure under the 
fir,t sub-rule had to be followed, adequate opportunity had to be given 
to the respondent to lead evidence on his own behalf to clear himself. 
No such opportunity having been given the enquiry could not be said 
to comply with the elementary principles 
of 
natural justice 
an<l the 
High Court rightly held that the enquiry was 
vitiated. (851 F-G; 852 
E-F; 853 F-GJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1260 of 
1966. 
Appeal from the _judgment and decree dated July 10, 1962 
of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in Special Appeal 
No. 551 of 1960. 
C. B. Agnnvala and 0. P. Rana, for the appellants. 
B. C. Misra, B. P. Iha and C. L. Lal, for the respondent. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
II 
B 
c 
p 
E 
F 
G 
H 
u:P. STATE v. c. s. SHARMA (Hidayatu/lah, J.) 
849 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hidayatullah, J. This is an appehl by the State of Uttar Pradesh 
against the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad. 
October 24, 1962, confirming in special appeal the deci;,ion of a 
learned Single Judge dated July 10, 1962. 
By that order the 
High Court has set aside the order of dismissal made by the State 
Government against the respondent C. S. Shanna on the ground 
that he did not have a fair enquiry before the Commissioner of 
Sales Tax when certain charges against him were inquired into. 
The facts of the case are as follows. 
The respondent C. S. 
Sharma was appointed as a Sales Tax Officer in J anuaty 1949 
and was transferred on April 1, 1950 to Hathras where he re-
mained till the end of September 1952. An enquiry was made 
with reference to certain allegations against hin1 durmg his period 
of stay at Hathras. 
On October 3, 1952, he .~as tran;,ferred t? 
Lakhampur Kheri and was ordered not to v1s1t Hathras until 
allowed by the authorities. 
It appears that in November 1952, 
an ex-parte inquiry was made by the Assistant Commissioner and 
the proceedings were submitted with a. preliminary report to the 
Commissioner. 
On the basis of this report an order of suspen-
sion was passed against him on February 18, 1953 and he was 
placed for inquiry before the Commissioner. 
A set of charges 
was delivered to him on April 15, 1953; then a supplementary 
charge-sheet was issued on July 8, 1953. 
Sharma asked for the 
inspection of the record of the preliminary inquiry as also the 
report,

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