VIJAY KUMAR NIGAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 544 · Decided: 06-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
VIJA Y KUMAR NIGAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 6, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAJK, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Disciplinary inquiry-Sub-Inspector of Police-(;harged of receiving 
C illegal gratification from organiser of gambling-Misconduct proved against 
delinquent-Dismissal from service-Pleas of delinquent that he was not 
supplied with a copy of the report of preliminary inquiry and that the 
statement of the co-accused against the delinquent was inadmissible in 
evidence-Held, not sustainable-The preliminary report is only to decide 
and assess whether it would be necessary to take any disciplinary action 
against the delinquent and it does not form any foundation for passing the 
D order of dismissal against the employee-Jn a departmental inquiry the 
question whether or not any delinquent is co-accused with other does not 
arise and evidence recorded tht!rein stricto senso is not evidence as per the 
provisions of Evidence Act. Therefore the statement of <Jlher delinquent 
employee objected to by the appellant also formed part of the record which 
E could be taken into account in adjudging the charge of misconduct against 
the appellant. 
' 
Administrative Law : 
Natural justic,,_Disciplinary inquiry-Non-supply of copy of report 
F of preliminary inquiry to delinquent-Held, does not violate principles of 
natural justice. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2564 of 
1980. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.5. 78 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in M.P. No. 204 of 1974. 
Nemo for the Appellants. 
H 
S.K. Agnihotri for the Respondents. 
544 
-
.. 
V.K. NIGAM v. STATEOFM.P. 
545 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Though the legal representatives of the appellant have been brought 
on record, they did not appear either in person or through counsel. We 
have taken the assistance of Shri S.K. Agnihotri, learned counsel for the 
State. 
The appellant, while working as Sub-Inspector, and being in-charge 
of the Police Station Pakhanjur, District Jagadalpur, on receipt of illegal 
gratification fuiled to prevent the running of common gambling house of 
one N.K. Ghosh. Consequently, in the departmental enquiry initiated against 
A 
B 
him the Enquiry Officer, after due enquiry and giving him opportunity, 
found thatthe appellant had received illegal gratification from the organiser C 
of gambling, N.K.Ghosh. Thereby, misconduct was proved against him. 
Based thereon, he was dismissed from service by order dated July 31, 
1971. On appeal, it was confirmed by the Inspector General of Police by 
order dated January 21, 1974. The same came to be challenged in the 
Misc. Petition No. 204/74. The Division Bench of the High Court in !he 
impugned judgment dated may 2, 1978, dismissed the same. Thus, this D 
appeal by special leave. 
Two grounds have been pressed for consideration in the High Court 
and reiterated in the appeal. The main ground was that the report of the 
preliminary enquiry conducted against him before initiating departmental 
enquiry, was not supplied to him and, therefore, it is violative of the E 
principle of natural justice. The High Court has rejected the contention 
and, in our view quite, rightly. The preliminary report is only to decide 
and assess whether it would be necessary to take any disciplinary action 
against the delinquent officer and it does not form any foundation for 
passing the order of dismissal against the employee. The High Court also F 
found as a fact that all the statements of persons that formed basis for 
report, recorded during the preliminary enquiry were supplied to the 
delinquent officer. It was then contended that one of the constables, namely, 
Palairam was a co-accused who was also charged along with the appellant 
and his evidence was taken into consideration in deciding against the 
appellant which is inadmissible in evidence. In a departmental enquiry, G 
the question, whether or not any delinquent officer is co-accused with 
other does not arise. That would arise in a prosecution laid for officer 
under the !PC or prevention of Corruption Act. The evidence recorded in 
the depart1nental enquiry stricto senso is not evidence as per the provisions 
of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the statement of Palairam also formed 
part of the record which could be taken into account in adjudging the H 
546 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A misconduct against the appellant. The Inspector General of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.