LexUNION OF INDIA versus SARDAR BAHADUR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'!!$
UNION OF INDIA
'"
SARDAR BAHADUR
October 29. 1971
[C, A. VAIDIALINGAM,
P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND
K. K. MATHEW, JJ.J
I>
I
.
('ii·il Servt1n1-£uq11ir\'-Reliu11c1• on staten1e1Jt.'i o
1vitne.'ises
criniinal cll.\"t! u·ithou1 ,·o/Jing
u·itnP.\l'f!.\'-~-./f per11iis.'iihl".
iu
11
Svope of enquiry-Jn1erferenc·e hy ·High Court 011 findings.
Punishnient irnvosed nn hasis that al/ char.r:es proved-Finding hy
Court that only so111P charges are proc:e~·d-lnterferenc<' lVith p11nishna·nr
in1posed-Propriety,
Civil Ser,:ire.t Con duct Rules. r. 13 ( 5 )-'Likely to have offecial dt•a/-
ings'. ,t('O!'t' of.
After the respondent \a section officer in the Ministry of lndustry
and Commerce) was acquitted in a criminal cas<.:. aQ enquiry under r. 15
of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Co::lrul and Appeal) RulOli,
A
8
c
1957, was held against him on the basis of thr~:.: charges. Statements or
D
the witnesses in the criminal case were tenderel in evidence iri the en-
quiry without calling the witnesses.
The Inquiring Officer rejected those
statements and found that only the thirQ charge was pro~ed and not the
first two.
The third charge was that he borrowed a sum of money wilh·
out obtaining previous sanction Of the Govemmc:it and placed him:-;cli
under pecuniary obligation to the lender
and
thereby
conl;;Jvcncd
r.
13(5) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955.
The· lendc'
was the representative of a firm which was an applicant for Jicences, itnd
E
though the application was made to a section in which the respondent
was not working, it would in due course have to be dealt with by· th~
section in which the respondent was working. The Disciplinary Authority
found that all the charges had been proved and passed an order compul-
sorily retiring the respondent from service.
A Single Judge of the High Court quashed the order and the letter.
patent appeal filed by the State was dismissed.
f
In appeal to this Court, it was contended that the statements rcjectetl
by the Inquiring Officer should have been admitted, that all the thre<
charges should have been held to be proved and that the order of con1-
pulsory retirement was justified.
HELD : (I) Tribunals should observe rules of natural justice in the
conduct of the inquiries, that is, no material can be relied upon to esta-
G
blish a contested fact unless spoken to by a witness who is subjected to
cross-examination.
In the present case, the persons whose statements
were sought to be relied on were in station, but \\o'ete not produced for
cross--ex.amination by the respondent.
They should have been recalled,
and tendered for cross-examination by the
respondent.
The
Inquiring
Officer \Vas therefore justified in refusing to receive
the
statements
as
evide/'. f2,23 A-DJ
H
Mis. Barai/ly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd.
v.
Workmen,
[1971]
2
$.C.R. 1il7 at 629 and Stale of.Mysore v. S.S. Makap11r, [19631 2 S.C.R.
943, 9~2. followed.
·
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
UNION v. SARDAR RAHADUR (Malhew, J.)
219
(2) But the interlerenoo by the High Court with respect to the third
charge was not justified. (225 F-G]
The second part of r. 13(5) of the Civil Services Conduct Rules for-
bids a civil servant from borrowing money from a person with whom he
is likely to have official dealings.
The words 'likely to have official deal-
ings' take within their ambit the possibility of future dealings between
the officer concerned and the person from whom he borrowed the money.
In the present case, even if the applications were dealt with at the initial
stage by another section the respondent shoulJ have known, that in due
course, the section in which he was working would have to deal with
them.
Therefore, when he borrowed money a few days earlier the res~
pondent contravened the rule.
[225 A-C]
(3) A disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial and therefore the
standard of proof requi-red is that of prepondercnce of probability and
not proof beyond reasonable doubt. If the inference that the lender was
a person likely to have official dealings. with the respondent
was
one
which a reasonahle person would draw from the proved facts of the casei
the High Coutt was wrong in sitting as a court of appeal over a decision
based upon it. The Letters Patent Bench had the same power of dealing
with all quesHons, either of fact or of law arising in the appeal, as the
Single Judge of the High Court.
If the enExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.