STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ORS. versus KHARAK SINGH

Citation: [2008] 12 S.C.R. 54 · Decided: 13-08-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 12 S.C.R. 54 
+-
A 
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ORS. 
v. 
KHARAK SINGH 
(Civil Appeal No. 4531 of 2007) 
B 
AUGUST 13, 2008. 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ] 
Service law - Departmental enquiry - Forest Guard al-
legedly involved in illegal felling of trees - Enquiry conducted 
c by enquiry officer - Dismissal of employee by disciplinary au-
thority as well as appellate authority - Quashing of by High 
Court - Justification of- Held: Justified since there were infir-
mities in conducting the enquiry - Enquiry Officer himself in-
spected areas in the forest and noted shortfall of trees, con-
D ducted enquiry, held that charges were proved and recom-
mended dismissal from service - He himself acted as inves-
tigator, prosecutor and judge which is opposed to principles 
-t-
of natural justice - A/so, delinquent not furnished with the re-
quired documents and department's witnesses not examined 
E in his presence - Principles to be followed while conducting 
enquiry proceedings, culled out. 
The respondent was working as a temporary forest 
guard. He was charge sheeted for his involvement in the 
illegal cutting of trees. The enquiry was entrusted to the 
F Enquiry Officer who submitted his report. On basis thereof, 
the Divisional Forest Officer dismissed the respondent. The 
}-
Conservator of Forest upheld the order. However, the High 
Court quashed the order of the Divisional Forest Officer 
as also the Conservator of Forest. It directed the appel-
G lants to re-instate the respondent in service with all conse-
quential benefits. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
~ 
HELD: 1 From the decisions of this Court the follow-
H 
54 
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ORS. v. 
55 
KHARAK SINGH 
---1 
· ing principles would emerge as to how enquiry is to be A 
conducted and which procedures are to be followed: 
i) The enquiries must be conducted bona fide and 
care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not be-
come empty formalities. 
ii) If an officer is a witness to any of the incidents 
which is the subject matter of the enquiry or if the enquiry 
was initiated on a report of an officer, then in all fairness 
B 
he should not be the Enquiry Officer. If the said position 
becomes known after the appointment of the Enquiry Of- c 
ficer, during the enquiry, steps should be taken to see that 
the task of holding an enquiry is assigned to some other· 
officer. 
iii) In an enquiry, the employer/department should 
take steps first to lead evidence against the workman/de-
D 
Hnquent charged, give an opportunity to him to cross-ex-
amine the witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter, the 
workman/delinquent be asked whether he wants to lead 
any evidence and asked to give any explanation about 
the evidence led against him. 
E 
iv) On receipt of the enquiry report, before proceeding 
further, it is incumbent on the part of the disciplinary/pun-
ishing authority to supply a copy of the enquiry report and 
all connected materials relied on by the enquiry officer to 
enable him to offer his views, if any. [Para 11] [64,B-G] 
F 
Associated Cement Co. Ltd. vs. The Workmen and Anr. 
(1964) 3 SCR 652; Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and 
Others vs. B. Karunakar and Others (1993) 4 SCC 727; 
Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. UP State Agro Industries Corpora-
G 
tion Ltd. and Another (1999) 2 SCC 21; Syndicate Bank and 
Others vs. Venkatesh Gururao Kurati (2006) 3 SCC 150; 
A.N.D'Silva vs. Union of India, (1962) Supp 1 SCR 968 - re-
lied on. 
2.1 In the instant case, it is clear that the Enquiry Of-
H 
56 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS · 
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
ficer himself has acted as the Investigator, Prosecutor and 
+-. 
Judge. Such a procedure is opposed to principles of natu-
ral justice. Though a detailed explanation was submitted 
controverting the charges levelled against the delinquent, 
no enquiry was ever conducted in terms of the stated prin-
B ciples. On the other hand, as is clear from the materials, 
the officer who inspected and noted the shortfall of trees, 
himself conducted the enquiry, arrived at a conclusion 
.,._. 
holding the charges proved and also strongly recom-
mended severe punishment of dismissal from service. 
r-
c The entire action and the course adopted by the enquiry 
F:
officer cannot be accepted and is contrary to the well-
. known principles. [Paras 12 and 13] [65,F,D; 66,D] 
2.2 Though there is no specific bar in offering views 
by the enquiry officer, in the case on hand, the enquiry of-
D 

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