- (1.) Validity of the impugned order of dismissal is in issue.
(2.) The scope of the inquiry whether the impugned order of dismissal dated June 11, 1969 is null and void is restricted to two facets. Whether the principles of Natural Justice were violated by the Respondents by refusing to supply to the appellant (1) copies of the statements of the witnesses examined at the stage of preliminary inquiry preceding the commencement of the inquiry and (2) copies of the documents said to have been relied upon by the disciplinary authority in order to establish the charges against the appellant who was holding the post of Superintendent of Police, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh. Such is the position having regard to the fact that this Court per Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) and Kailasam, J. as per order dated October 25, 1977 whilst granting special leave, has so restricted the scope of the appeal in the following terms : - "Special leave granted limited only to the question whether there was any violation of Article 311 of the Constitution in regard to the documents and the statement of witnesses referred to in the affidavit of the petitioner dated 12-2-1977."
(3.) As many as 8 charges, charges of serious nature, were levelled against the appellant who was at the material time holding the post of Superintendent of Police. The appellant was exonerated of all the charges except and save charges 1 and 2 and charge 8 partly. The particulars of the charges were set out in the statement of allegations accompanying the charge-sheet dated April 3, 1962. The appellant challenged the impugned order of dismissal from service in the High Court on a number of grounds. The High Court repelled all the contentions and dismissed the Writ Petition. It is not necessary to advert to these contentions inasmuch as the controversy has now been narrowed down to one central issue viz. whether there has been violation of principles of natural justice by reason of : (i) failure to supply copies of the statements of witnesses recorded ex parte at the pre-enquiry stage; and (ii) the failure to supply copies of the documents on which reliance was placed by the Department to establish the charges before the enquiry commenced. The following facts are not in dispute: (1) The appellant had requested for the supply of the copies of all the statements made by the witnesses at a pre-enquiry stage as also for copies of the documents on which reliance was placed in support of the charges levelled against him, as per his letter dated 21-4-1962 Annexure XI of the Writ Petition addressed to the Chief Secretary. (2) The request made by the appellant was in terms turned down by the Disciplinary Authority as per his letter dated 25-7-62 Annexure XIX of the Writ Petition. (3) The Disciplinary Authority granted permission to the appellant to inspect the copies of the statements and documents in question, if he so desired, (4) The request made by the appellant for being accompanied by his Stenographer to whom he could dictate notes based on his inspection was in terms turned down by the Disciplinary Authority, though the appellant was told that he himself could make such notes as he desired on the basis of the inspection made by him. (5) The aforesaid copies of the statements of the witnesses and the copies of the documents have not been supplied to the appellant till the conclusion of the departmental proceedings. (6) In all as many as 38 witnesses were examined in the course of the departmental proceeding and as many as 112 documents were produced to substantiate the 8 charges levelled against the appellant. Preliminary objection :;