LexUNION OF INDIA versus T. R. VARMA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 499 UNION OF INDIA 1957 V. September lS T. R. VARMA (S. R. DAS C.J., VENKATARAMA AYYAR, B. P. SINHA, J, L. KAPUR and A. K. SARKAR, JJ.) Government Servant-Dismissal-Enquiry-Procedure for taking evidence-Applicability of the Indian Evidence Act-Rules of natural justice-Reasonable opportunity-Constitution of India, Art, 3 I I (2). - Writ-Special jurisdiction of High Court-Alternative remedy -Disputed questions involving taking of evidence-Practice of the High Court-Constitution of India, Art. 226. The respondent was dismissed from service under the Government of India in pursuance of an enquiry held under Art. 311 of the Constitution of India. He filed an application in the High Court under Art, 226 to quash the order of dismissal on ~he grounds inter alia that in t!ie enquiry the evide11-ce of the respondent and his witnesses was not taken in the mode prescril)ed by the Indian Evidence Act and that as a result he was not given a reaso~ble opportunity as required under Art. 311 (2). It was found that though the procedure laid down in that Act was not strictly followed the respondent was given a full opportunity of placing his evidence before the Enquiring Officer. Held: (I) Petitions under Art. 226 of the Constiiutiou should not generally be entertained by the High Courts where an alter- native and equally efficacious remedy is available. It is not the practice of Courts to decide in a writ-petition disputed questions which cannot be satisfactorily decided without taking evidence. Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana, (1950) s:c.R. 566 and K.S. Rashid and Son v. The Income-tax Investigation Commis- sion (1954) S.C.R. 738, relied on. (2) The Indian Evidence Act has 110 application to enquiries conducted by tribunals. The law only· requires that tribunals should observe rules of natural justice such as that a party should have the opportunity of adducing au . .retevant evidence on which he relics, that the evidence of the opponent should be taken in his presence and that he should ~ given the opportunity of cro:>s-cxam.ining the witnesses ex1mined by that party, and that no materials should be relied on against him without his being given an opportunity of explaining them. If these ru'Ies are satisfied then the enquiry is not open to attack on the ground that the procedure laid down in th~ Indian Evidence Act for taking evidence was not strictly followed. New Prakash Transport Co. v. New Suwama Transport Co .• (1957) S.C.R. 98, follcwed. 1957 Union of India v. T. R. Varnia Venkatarama Aiyar J. 500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1958] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appe<tl No. 118 of 1957. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 31, 1956, of the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi in Civil Writ No. 243-D of 1954. C.K. Daphtary Solicitor-General of India, R. Gana- pathy Iyer and R.H. Dhebar, for the appellant. Purshottam Tricumdas, T. S. Venkatraman and K. R. Chaudhury, for the respondent. 1957. September 18. The following Judgment of the Court·was delivered by VENK'ATARAMA AIYAR, J.-This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab in an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution setting aside an order dated September 16, 1954, dismissing die respondent herein, from Government service on the ground that it was in contravention of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution. The respondent was, at the material dates, an Assist- ant Controller in the Commerce Department of the Union Government. Sometime in the middle of March, 1953, one Shri Bhan, a representative of a Calcutta firm styled Messrs. Gattulal Chhaganlal Joshi, came to Delhi with a view to get the name of the firm remov- ed from black list in which it had been placed, and for that purpose, he was contacting the officers in the Department. Information was given to Sri Tawakley an assistant in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Complaints Branch), that Sri -Bhan was offering to give bribe for getting an order in his favour. He immediately reported the matter to the Special Police Establishment, and they decided to lay a trap for him. Sri Bhan, however, was willing to pay the bribe only after an order in his favour.had been made and com- municated, but he offered that he would get the respond- ent to stand as surety for· payment by him. The police thereafter deci
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.