LexTHE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER versus MAHENDRA KUMAR DAS AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER v. MAHENDRA KUMAR DAS AND OTHERS March 18, 1970 117 B [S. M. SHIBI, V. BHARGAVA AND C. A. VAIDJALINGAM, JJ.] c D E F G H Natural Justice-Departmental Enquiry-Consultations held' and mate- rial collected behind back of delinquent officer-Whether enquiry is vitiated-Enquiry is not vitiated if such material not taken into account and enquiry officer not influenced. Assam Police Manual, Part Ill, Rule 66-Appointing Authority in case of .Sub-Inspector is Superintendent of Police. The first respondent was at the relevant time a Sub-Inspector in the service of the State of Assam. In regard to certain allegations a confi- dential enquiry was held against him by the Superintendent of Police Anti-Corruption Branch who submitted his report to the Government in 1957. A departmental enquiry was thereafter held. On receipt of the enquiry officer's report, the Superintendent of Police asked for the respon- dent's explanation and thereafter in December 1958 ordered his dismissal. The respondent's appeal before the Deputy Inspector-General of Police and his revisions before the Inspector-General and the State Government 'failed. Thereupon the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court ·hal!enging the validity of the departmental enquiry and· the order of dismissal. The High Court allowed the petition on the ground that the enquiry officer had during the course of the enquiry consulted the Superintendent of Police Anti-Corruption Branch and had taken into con- sideration the materials gathered from the records of the Anti-Corruption Branch without making the report of that Branch and the said material available to the respondent. The State appealed to this Court by special leave contending that : ( i) the enquiry officer was not influenced by his consultations with the Superintendent of Police Anti-Corruption Branch and (ii) in any event the Superintendent of Police bc'fore orderiog the respondent's dismissal had himself considered the entire evidence. It was submitted that the appellate aulhority. i.e .. the Deputy Inspector-General of Police had also made a similar approach while consideriog the respon- dent's appeal and therefore there had been no denial of natural justice. On behalf of the respondent it was urged that the orders relating to the appointment of the respondent as permanent Sub-Inspector had been pass- ed by the Inspector-General of Police and there'fore the Superintendent of Police was not competent to order his dismissal. HELD : (i) It is highly improper for an enquiry officer during the conduct of an enquiry to attempt to collect any materials from outside sources and not make that information so collected, available to the delin- quent officer and further make use of the same in the enquiry proceedings. There may also be cases where a very clever and astute enquiry officer may collect outside information behind the back of the delinquent officer and, without any apparent reference to the information so collected, may have been influenced in the conclusions recorded by him against the delin- quent officer concerned. If it is established that any material had been collected during the enquiry behind the back of the delinquent officer and such material had been relied on by the enquiry officer, without being dis- closed to the delinquent officer, it can be stated that the enquiry proceed- ings are vitiated. [96 F-H] · 88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971 ]1' S.C.R. In the present case however there was no warrant for the High Court's view that the enquiry officer took into consideration the materials found by the Anti-Corruption Branch. On the other hand, a perusal of the re- port shOIA'ed that each and every item of charge had been discussed with reference to the evidence bearing on the same and findings recorded on. the basis of such evidence. Therefore it could not be stated that the enquiry officer in this case had taken into account the materials :f any that he may have collected from the Anti-Corruption Branch. Nor was there anything to show, in the discussion contained in his report that the enquiry officer was in any way influenced by the consultations that he had with the Anti-Corruption Branch. If so, it could not be held that the enquiry proceedings were violative of the principles of natural justice. [97 E-GJ The fact that a copy of the report cif the Anti-Corruption B'ranch was not furnished
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.