RAM HARAKH TEWARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal from an appellate judgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge of Kanpur raises certain vexed questions which of late have been agitating the made of judge, jurists, professional lawyers and administrators alike, whether refusal by a disciplinary authority while on quiring into charges against a Government servant to allow that Government servant to have his case presented and defended by another person in whom he has confidence, may be his own colleague in his office or a lawyer, amount to denial of adequate opportunity or reasonable opportunity to defend himself.

(2.) The plaintiff appellant Ram Harkh Tiwari was employed as a lower division clerk in the Harness and Saddlery Factory, Kanpur, an establishment under the Ministry of Defence of the Government of India. He was charged with gross misconduct in having tried to commit theft of Government property. The Board of Enquiry was constituted under Civilians in Defence Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1952, before whom the charges levelled against him were enquired into. The Board of Enquiry on a consideration of the evidence on record found the charged proved. A notice to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service was then served on the plaintiff and his explanation having been found unsatisfactory the appointing authority by its order dated 6-7-1960 dismissed him from service. A departmental appeal having proved unsuccessful, the plaintiff then instituted the suit in the court of the Munsiff at Kanpur. The substantive relief claimed was as follows:-

(3.) The cause of action as revealed by the plaint was based on certain allegation concerning the conduct of enquiry by the Board of Enquiry under Rr. 15 of the above mentioned rules. Briefly stated the allegation was that the Court of Enquiry conducted the trial of the plaintiff in utter violation the trial of the principles of natural justice. It was alleged that (a) accusation against the plaintiff was false and has come up as a result of conspiracy against him by Sri Viz., and Jaipal Singh, Gate-keeper and Senior Gate-keeper of the Factory respectively; (b) that the request of the plaintiff to engage a person for the purpose of cross-examining the prosecution witnesses he in not being good health and having no experience of conduct of trials and having no knowledge of the rules of the Court of Enquiry, was turned down; (c) that the request of the plaintiff to permit him to keep a person with him to note statement of the witnesses so that he could prepare himself for their cross-examination was also rejected; (d) that relevant material question which were absolutely necessary and germane to the enquiry were not allowed to be put to the witness in cross-examination; (e) that the answers which went to belie and falsify the charge levelled a against the Enquiry; (f) that material witnesses were withheld despite the plaintiff's prayer to summon them and he was further denied an opportunity to produce one of his witnesses; (g) that the plaintiff was denied an effective right of cross-examination by the Court of Enquiry; (h) that certain documents in support of the defence case sought to be adduced by the plaintiff were not admitted in evidence.