UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus P. THAYAGARAJAN

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 114 · Decided: 24-11-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
P. THAY AGARAJAN 
NOVEMBER 24, 1998 
B 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD ANDS. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.] 
Central Reserve Police Act, 1949: 
Section II(!). Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955: Rule 27(c) 
C (2). Service Law-Departmental enquiry-Report-Infirmity in enquiry-
Adducing evidence contrary to rules -Manner of evidence affecting rights 
of parties-Power of disciplinary Authority to order De Novo enquiry. 
Central Reserve Police Force-Sub-Inspector -Enquiry against-
Witnesses-Lellers wrillen by - Witnesses indicated facts within their 
D knowledge but expressed inability to attend enquiry proceeding-Lellers 
treated by Enquiry Officer as statements made before him-Disciplinary 
Authority holding that the procedure adopted by Enquiry Officer was 
contrary to rules-Direction for fresh enquiry by Disciplinary Authority-
Held valid. 
E 
In a departmental enquiry against the respondent, a Sub-Inspector in 
Central Reserve PoliCe Force, two witnesses - one on behalf of the respondent 
and the other on behalf of Department - wrote letters to the Enquiry Officer 
indicating facts within their knowledge and expressing their inability to 
attend the enquiry proceedings. The Enquiry Officer treated these letters as 
statements of the witnesses made before him. The Disciplinary Authority set 
F aside the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer as it was of the view that 
in treating the letters as statements of witnesses the Enquiry officer acted 
contrary to rules affecting the rights of the parties. The respondent challenged 
the order of the Disciplinary Authority directing De Novo enquiry before the 
High Court ofGuahati. 
G 
A Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order passed by the 
Disciplinary Authority holding that in an appeal arising out of an order of 
punishment made by the Disciplinary Authority accepting or rejecting the 
conclusion reached by the enquiry authority, the appellate authority could 
direct a fresh or De Novo enquiry and such power was not available to the 
H Disciplinary Authority. Union of India preferred appeal before this Court. 
114 
U.0.1. v. P. THAY AGARAJAN 
llS 
Allowing the appeal and dismissing the writ petition filed by the A 
respondent in the High Court, this Court. 
HELD : 1. The procedure adopted in taking letters as statements is in 
violation of Rule 27(c) (2) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. 
What is contemplated in Rule 27(c) (2) is that evidence material to the 
charge could be either oral or documentary and, if oral, (i) it shall be direct; B 
(ii) it shall be recorded by the officer conducting the enquiry himself or by 
any officer; and (iii) the accused shall be allowed to cross examine the 
witness. When reliance is sought to be placed on oral evidence of witnesses 
it will have to be obtained in the manner indicated in the said Rule and that 
the oral statement has to be recorded by the officer himself conducting the C 
enquiry in the presence of the parties and it cannot be done in any other 
manner. (118-E-F) 
2. Rule 27(c) enables the Disciplinary Authority to record his findings 
on the report and to pass an appropriate order including ordering a de novo 
enquiry in a case of present nature. In the present case the basis upon which 
the Disciplinary Authority set aside the enquiry is that the procedure adopted D 
by the Enquiry Officer was contrary to the relevant rules and affects the 
rights of the parties and not that the report does not appeal to him. When 
important evidence, either to be relied upon by the department or by the 
delinquent official, is shut out, this would not result in any advancement of 
any justice but on the other hand result in a miscarriage thereof. The E 
reasoning adopted by the Division Bench of the High Court was P,lainly 
incorrect. Whatever may be the powers of the appellate authority, the 
Disciplinary Authority will have to be satisfied with the procedure adopted 
by the Enquiry Officer before passing an order. It does not stand the logic 
that in a given case the Appel!ate Authority could order a fresh enquiry and F 
not the Disciplinary Authority at whose instance the enquiry began and 
which is not satisfied with the enquiry held for some vital defects in the 
procedure adopted. The order passed by the High Court is set aside. 
(119-D; C-E) 
K.R. Deb v. Collector of Central Excise, Shillong, (1971) 2 sec 102, G 
explained and held inapplicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil App

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