- (1.) THIS special appeal is directed against the order of S.N. Dwivedi J. dated May 9, 1966, by which he allowed Writ Petition No. 4027 of 1958 and quashed an order of the divisional manager of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agra Division) dated August 18, 1958, dismissing the petitioner from service.
(2.) THE petitioner, Hari Om Varshany (the present respondent) was employed in the Life Insurance Corporation as a field officer at Moradabad. Complaints were lodged against him by certain persons, accusing him of misappropriating various sums of money which he had collected on behalf of the Corporation. A departmental inquiry was held by a committee consisting of two members appointed by the divisional manager (Agra Division) and evidence was recorded from the 1st of April to the 7th of April, 1958. The committee came to the conclusion that the charges were proved, and on June 16, 1958, notice was served on the petitioner asking him to show cause ' why a suitable penalty should not be imposed '. He sent a reply to this notice, asserting that the charges were baseless ; but his explanation was held to be unsatisfactory and on August 18, 1958, the divisional manager passed the impugned order, dismissing him from service. The learned single judge has found that the proceedings taken against the petitioner suffer from serious flaws and that the principles of natural justice have been infringed in this case. He has held that the petitioner was not permitted to cross -examine the witnesses whose evidence was relied upon against him, and that he was not furnished with a copy of the findings of the inquiry committee before being asked to show cause against the imposition of the penalty. Further he has held the final show cause notice of June 16, 1958, to be defective, since it did not specify the precise punishment that was proposed to be awarded.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has challenged all these findings, but it will be enough for the decision of this appeal to consider only one point viz., whether it is a fact that the petitioner -respondent was debarred from cross -examining the witnesses. In paragraph 22 of the affidavit accompanying the writ petition he has stated as follows : ' That during the course of the enquiry statement of witnesses was recorded. The applicant prayed for cross -examining the various witnesses. The said request was refused on the ground that the enquiry was departmental in nature and cross examination would not be allowed. The reply to this is to be found in paragraph 39 of the counter affidavit, which states : ' That with regard to the contents of paragraph 22 of the affidavit, it is denied that the applicant prayed for cross -examining the various witnessess during the course of the inquiry. The petitioner made a request to the chairman, enquiry committee, only on the 7th of April, 1958, when the inquiry had been completed. This request was made as an afterthought and in order to create a ground to somehow or other challenge the conduct of the enquiry committee.' ;