Bombay High Court
The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax And ... vs Rb Saire (Dead) Thru Lr. Sr Saire And Anor on 1 December, 2023
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
2023:BHC-NAG:16669-DB
WP 968 of 2008.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.968/2008
PETITIONERS 1. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Aaykar Bhawan, Telengkhedi, Nagpur.
2. The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Aaykar Bhawan, Telengkhedi, Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS 1. Shri R.B. Saire (Since deceased)
through legal heir
S.R. Saire, aged major, resident of
Plot No.53, Ram Nagr, N.M.C. Primary
School, Nagpur - 10.
2. Central Administrative Tribunal,
Camp at Nagpur.
Mrs. Mugdha Chandurkar, Advocate for petitioners
Mr. Anubhav Mardikar, Advocate for respondent no.1
5
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.
Date of reserving the judgment : 10/11/2023
Date of pronouncing the judgment : 01 /12/2023 10
J U D G M E N T:
(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
WP 968 of 2008.odt
1. Heard Mrs. Mugdha Chandurkar, learned counsel for
the petitioners and Mr. Anubhav Mardikar, learned counsel for the
respondent no.1.
2. The petition challenges the judgment of the learned 5
Central Administrative Tribunal ("CAT" for short hereinafter)
dated 04/12/2006, whereby the Original Application
No.2071/2004 filed by the original respondent against the order
of the Disciplinary Authority dated 17/01/2000, dismissing him
from service; the order dated 13/10/2003 of the Appellate 10
Authority, confirming the said punishment by rejecting his appeal
and the memo dated 17/09/1998 by the Additional
Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Nagpur proposing to hold
an enquiry against him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 ["CCS(CCA) 15
Rules, 1965" hereinafter for short) has been allowed and the
termination of the original respondent has been set aside.
However, since the original respondent had already expired, the
reinstatement was not directed but the other benefits like
computation of pension, family pension and other pensionary 20
WP 968 of 2008.odt
benefits have been directed to be paid to his legal heirs, the
present respondent no.1.
3. It is necessary to note that the CAT had allowed the
original application on two grounds: (i) that the enquiry initiated 5
against the original respondent stood vitiated on account of non-
supply of the documents filed along with the chargesheet and (ii)
that material extraneous to the enquiry namely letter dated
31/08/1999 by Mr. D.P. Shrivastava was considered by the
Enquiry Officer, which did not form part and parcel of the enquiry 10
proceedings. On account of both these grounds the enquiry has
been held to have been vitiated.
4. Mrs. Mugdha Chandurkar, learned counsel for the
petitioners while assailing the impugned judgment of the learned 15
CAT contends that the finding rendered that the enquiry stood
vitiated, is not sustainable in law, for the reason that the
documents were supplied, maybe later in point of time on
10/08/1999, which, according to her, is reflected from the
ordersheet of the said date (page 97). Relying upon the language 20
of Rule 14 (4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, it is contended that
WP 968 of 2008.odt
the requirement of the Rules was only to supply a list of
documents and witnesses, and since there is no dispute that a list
of documents was indeed supplied and no demand was made for
supply of the documents included in the list, the provisions of
Rule 14 (4) of the CCS (CCA ) Rules, 1965 stood complied with. 5
Since the aforesaid Rules, according to learned counsel, do not
require the documents to be supplied, non-supply of the same, or
for that matter, delay in supplying of the same, would not result
in vitiating the enquiry, nor causing any prejudice to the original
respondent and the enquiry conducted, in that view of the matter 10
was legal and proper. It is also contended that even otherwise an
inspection of the documents on record was granted to the original
respondent, which position is not disputed and that would suffice
the requirement of Rule 14 (4) of the aforesaid Rules. She places
reliance upon State Bank of Patiala and others Vs. S. K. Sharma 15
(1996) 3, SCC 364; Narendra Nath Bhalla Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others (2007) 15 SCC 775; State Bank of India and
others Vs. Bidyut Kumar Mitra and others (2011) 2 SCC 316;
State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Rajit Singh 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 341 and Chairman, State Bank of India and another 20
Vs. M J. James (2022) 2 SCC 301, in support of her contentions.
WP 968 of 2008.odt
5. Insofar as the finding that the enquiry stood vitiated
on account of extraneous material being considered by the
Enquiry Officer, she contends that the finding in this regard is
equally unsustainable in law, for the reason that the original
respondent was well aware of the said communication and 5
therefore could not claim ignorance of the same or that it was an
extraneous material. It is, therefore, contended that the judgment
of the CAT is liable to be quashed and set aside and the findings
rendered in the enquiry and the punishment of termination
6. Mr. Anubhav Mardikar, learned counsel for the
original respondent supports the impugned judgment and
contends that supply of the entire documents relied upon in the
chargesheet is a sine-qua-non, failure of which would vitiate the 15
entire enquiry on account of denial of a reasonable opportunity to
meet the case claimed to have existed against the original
respondent and would also be in violation of the principles of
natural justice. It is also contended that the conduct of enquiry
would not permit any extraneous material to be considered such 20
as the communication between Mr. Shrivastava, which was given
WP 968 of 2008.odt
to the original respondent by the Presenting Officer, along with
the prosecution brief, which was never taken on record during the
enquiry proceedings, as a result of which, the right of the original
respondent to deny the contents of the letter dated 31/08/1999
of Mr. Shrivastava was clearly thwarted, resulting in vitiation of 5
the enquiry. Learned counsel places reliance upon State of Uttar
Pradesh and others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010) 2 SCC 772;
Union of India and others Vs. B.V. Gopinath (2014) 1 SCC 351;
Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and another Vs. Madanlal
Tandon AIR 2015 SC 2876, in support of his contentions. 10
7. The entire case depends upon the language of
Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which is the procedure by
which the enquiry for imposing major penalties has to be
conducted. For the sake of ready reference Rule 14 of the CCS 15
(CCA) Rules, 1965 is reproduced as under:
"14. Procedure for imposing major penalties. - (1) No order
imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix)
of Rule 11 shall be made except after an inquiry held, as far 20
as may be, in the manner provided by the Public Servants
(Inquiries) Act, 1850 (37 of 1850), where such inquiry is
held under that Act.
WP 968 of 2008.odt
(2) Whenever the disciplinary authority is of the
opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth
of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a
Government Servant, it may itself inquire into, or appoint
under this rule or under the provisions of the Public 5
Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, as the case may be, an
authority to inquire into the truth thereof.
Provided that where there is a complaint of sexual
harassment within the meaning of Rule 3-C of the Central
Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, the Complaints 10
Committee established in each Ministry or Department or
Office for inquiring into such complaints, shall be deemed
to be the Inquiring Authority appointed by the Disciplinary
Authority for the purpose of these rules and the Complaints
Committee shall hold, if separate procedure has not been 15
prescribed for the Complaints Committee for holding the
inquiry into the complaints of sexual harassments, the
inquiry as far as practicable in accordance with the
procedure laid down in these rules.
Explanation. - Where the disciplinary authority itself 20
holds the inquiry, any reference in sub-rule (7) to sub-rule
(20) and in sub-rule (22) to the inquiring authority shall be
construed as a reference to the disciplinary authority.
(3) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a
Government Servant under this Rule and Rule 15, the 25
disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn
up-
(i) the substance of the imputations of misconduct or
misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of
(ii) a statement of the imputations of misconduct or
mis-behaviour in support of each article of charge,
which shall contain-
(a) a statement of all relevant facts including any
admission or confession made by the Government 35
servant;
(b) a list of documents by which, and a list of
witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed
to be sustained.
(4) The disciplinary authority shall deliver or cause to 40
be delivered to the Government Servant a copy of the
articles of charge, the statement of the imputations of
WP 968 of 2008.odt
misconduct or misbehaviour and a list of documents and
witnesses by which each article of charge is proposed to be
sustained and shall require the Government Servant to
submit, within such time as may be specified, a written
statement of his defence and state whether he desires to be 5
heard in person.
(5) (a) On receipt of the written statement of defence,
the disciplinary authority may itself inquire into such of the
articles of charge as are not admitted, or, if it considers if 10
necessary so to do, appoint, under sub-rule (2), an
inquiring authority for the purpose, and where all the
articles of charge have been admitted by the Government
Servant in his written statement of defence, the disciplinary
authority shall record its findings on each charge after 15
taking such evidence as it may think fit and shall act in the
manner laid down in Rule 15.
(b) If no written statement of defence is submitted by
the Government Servant the disciplinary authority may,
itself, inquire into the articles of charge, or may, if it 20
considers it necessary to do so, appoint under sub-rule (2)
an inquiring authority for the purpose.
(c) Where the disciplinary authority itself inquires into
any article of charge or appoints an inquiring authority for
holding an inquiry into such charge, it may, by an order, 25
appoint a Government Servant or a legal practitioner, to be
known as the "Presenting Officer" to present on its behalf
the case in support of the articles of charge.
(6) The disciplinary authority shall, where it is not the
inquiring authority, forward to the inquiring authority- 30
(i) a copy of the articles of charge and the statement
of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour;
(ii) a copy of the written statement of the defence, if
any, submitted by the Government Servant;
(iii) a copy of the statements of witness, if any, 35
referred to in sub-rule (3);
(iv) evidence proving the delivery of the documents
referred to in sub-rule (3) to the Government Servant; and
(v) a copy of the order appointing the "Presenting
(7) The Government Servant shall appear in person
before the inquiring authority on such day and at such time
WP 968 of 2008.odt
within ten working days from the date of receipt by the
inquiring authority of the articles of charge and the
statement of the imputations of misconduct or
misbehaviour, as the inquiring authority may, by notice in
writing, specify, in this behalf, or within such further time, 5
not exceeding ten days, as the inquiring authority may
allow.
(8)(a) The Government Servant may take the
assistance of any other Government Servant posted in any
office either at his headquarters or at the place where the 10
inquiry is held, to present the case on his behalf, but may
not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the
Presenting Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is
a legal practitioner, or, the disciplinary authority, having
regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits ; 15
Provided that the Government Servant may take the
assistance of any other Government Servant posted at any
other station, if the inquiring authority having regard to the
circumstances of the case and for reasons to be recorded in
Note : The Government Servant shall not take the
assistance of any other Government Servant who has two
pending disciplinary cases on hand in which he has to give
assistance.
assistance of a retired Government Servant to present the
case on his behalf, subject to such conditions as may be
specified by the President from time to time by general or
special order in this behalf.
(9) If the Government Servant who has not admitted 30
any of the articles of charge in his written statement of
defence or has not submitted any written statement of
defence, appears before the inquiring authority, such
authority shall ask him whether he is guilty or has any
defence to make and if he pleads guilty to any of the 35
articles of charge, the inquiring authority shall record the
plea, sign the record and obtain the signature of the
Government Servant thereon.
(10) The inquiring authority shall return a finding of
guilt in respect of those articles of charge to which the 40
Government Servant pleads guilty.
WP 968 of 2008.odt
(11) The inquiring authority shall, if the Government
Servant fails to appear within the specified time or refuses
or omits to plead, require the Presenting Officer to produce
the evidence by which he proposes to prove the articles of
charge, and shall, adjourn the case to a later date not 5
exceeding thirty days, after recording an order that the
Government Servant may, for the purpose of preparing his
defence :
(i) inspect within five days of the order or within such
further time not exceeding five days as the inquiring 10
authority may allow, the documents specified in the list
referred to in sub-rule (3);
(ii) submit a list of witnesses to be examined on his
behalf;
Note.- If the Government Servant applies orally or in 15
writing for the supply of copies of the statements of
witnesses mentioned in the list referred to in sub-rule (3),
the inquiring authority shall furnish him with such copies
as early as possible and in any case not later than three
days before the commencement of the examination of the 20
witnesses on behalf of the disciplinary authority.
(iii) give a notice within ten days of the order or
within such further time not exceeding ten days as the
inquiring authority may allow, for the discovery or
production of any documents which are, in the possession 25
of Government but not mentioned in the list referred to in
sub-rule (3).
Note.- The Government servant shall indicate the
relevance of the documents required by him to be
(12) The inquiring authority, shall, on receipt of the
notice for the discovery or production of documents,
forward the same or copies thereof to the authority in
whose custody or possession the documents are kept, with
a requisition for the production of the documents by such 35
date as may be specified in such requisition :
Provided that the inquiring authority may, for reasons
to be recorded by it in writing, refuse to requisition such of
the documents as are, in its opinion, not relevant to the
(13) On receipt of the requisition referred to in sub-
rule (12), every authority having the custody or possession
WP 968 of 2008.odt
of the requisitioned documents shall produce the same
before the inquiring authority :
Provided that if the authority having the custody or
possession of the requisitioned documents is satisfied for
reasons to be recorded by it in writing that the production 5
of all or any of such documents would be against the public
interest or security of the State, it shall inform the inquiring
authority accordingly and the inquiring authority shall, on
being so informed, communicate the information to the
Government Servant and withdraw the requisition made by 10
it for the production or discovery of such documents.
(14) On the date fixed for the inquiry, the oral and
documentary evidence by which the articles of charge are
proposed to be proved shall be produced by or on behalf of
the disciplinary authority. The witnesses shall be examined 15
by or on behalf of the Presenting Officer and may be cross-
examined by or on behalf of the Government Servant. The
Presenting Officer shall be entitled to re-examine the
witnesses on any points on which they have been cross-
examined, but not on any new matter, without the leave of 20
the inquiring authority. The inquiring authority may also
put such questions to the witnesses as it thinks fit.
(15) If it shall appear necessary before the close of the
case on behalf of the disciplinary authority, the inquiring
authority may, in its discretion, allow the Presenting Officer 25
to produce evidence not included in the list given to the
Government Servant or may itself call for new evidence or
recall and re-examine any witness and in such case the
Government Servant shall be entitled to have, if he
demands it, a copy of the list of further evidence proposed 30
to be produced and an adjournment of the inquiry for three
clear days before the production of such new evidence,
exclusive of the day of adjournment and the day to which
the inquiry is adjourned. The inquiring authority shall give
the Government Servant an opportunity of inspecting such 35
documents before they are taken on the record. The
inquiring authority may also allow the Government Servant
to produce new evidence, if it is of the opinion that the
production of such evidence is necessary, in the interests of
Note.- New evidence shall not be permitted or called
for or any witness shall not be recalled to fill up any gap in
WP 968 of 2008.odt
the evidence. Such evidence may be called for only when
there is an inherent lacuna or defect in the evidence which
has been produced originally.
(16) When the case for the disciplinary authority is
closed, the Government Servant shall be required to state 5
his defence, orally or in writing, as he may prefer. If the
defence is made orally, it shall be recorded and the
Government Servant shall be required to sign the record. In
either case, a copy of the statement of defence shall be
given to the Presenting Officer, if any, appointed. 10
(17) The evidence on behalf of the Government
Servant shall then be produced. The Government Servant
may examine himself in his own behalf if he so prefers. The
witnesses produced by the Government Servant shall then
be examined and shall be liable to cross-examination, re- 15
examination and examination by the inquiring authority
according to the provisions applicable to the witnesses for
the disciplinary authority.
(18) The inquiring authority may, after the
Government Servant closes his case, and shall, if the 20
Government Servant has not examined himself, generally
question him on the circumstances appearing against him
in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the Government
Servant to explain any circumstances appearing in the
(19) The inquiring authority may, after the completion
of the production of evidence, hear the Presenting Officer, if
any, appointed, and the Government Servant, or permit
them to file written briefs of their respective case, if they so
(20) If the Government Servant to whom a copy of the
articles of charge has been delivered, does not submit the
written statement of defence on or before the date specified
for the purpose or does not appear in person before the
inquiring authority or otherwise fails or refuses to comply 35
with the provisions of this rule, the inquiring authority may
hold the inquiry ex parte.
(21)(a) Where a disciplinary authority competent to
impose any of the penalties specified in clause (i) to (iv) of
Rule 11 (but not competent to impose any of the penalties 40
specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11), has itself
inquired into or caused to be inquired into the articles of
WP 968 of 2008.odt
any charge and that authority, having regard to its own
findings or having regard to its decision on any of the
findings of any inquiring authority appointed by it, is of the
opinion that the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of
Rule 11 should be imposed on the Government Servant, 5
that authority shall forward the records of the inquiry to
such disciplinary authority as is competent to impose the
last mentioned penalties.
(b) The disciplinary authority to which the records are
so forwarded may act on the evidence on the record or may, 10
if it is of the opinion that further examination of any of the
witnesses is necessary in the interests of justice, recall the
witness and examine and cross-examine and re-examine the
"witness" and may impose on the Government Servant such
penalty as it may deem fit in accordance with these rules. 15
(22) Whenever any inquiring authority, after having
heard and recorded the whole or any part of the evidence
in an inquiry ceases to exercise jurisdiction therein, and is
succeeded by another inquiring authority which has, and
which exercises, such jurisdiction, the inquiring authority so 20
succeeding, may act on the evidence so recorded by its
predecessor, or partly recorded by its predecessor and
partly recorded by itself:
Provided that if the succeeding inquiring authority is
of the opinion that further examination of any of the 25
witnesses whose evidence has already been recorded is
necessary in the interests of justice, it may recall, examine,
cross-examine and re-examine any such witnesses as
hereinbefore provided.
(23)(i) After the conclusion of the inquiry, a report 30
shall be prepared and it shall contain-
(a) the articles of charge and the statement of the
imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour;
(b) the defence of the Government servant in respect
(c) an assessment of the evidence in respect of each
article of charge;
(d) the findings on each article of charge and the
reasons therefor.
Explanation.-If in the opinion of the inquiring 40
authority the proceedings of the inquiry establish any
WP 968 of 2008.odt
article of charge different from the original articles of the
charge, it may record its findings on such article of charge:
Provided that the findings on such article of charge
shall not be recorded unless the Government Servant has
either admitted the facts on which such article of charge is 5
based or has had a reasonable opportunity of defending
himself against such article of charge.
(ii) The inquiring authority, where it is not itself the
disciplinary authority, shall forward to the disciplinary
authority the records of inquiry which shall include :- 10
(a) the report prepared by it under clause (i);
(b) the written statement of defence, if any, submitted
by the Government servant;
(c) the oral and documentary evidence produced in 15
the course of the inquiry;
(d) written briefs, if any, filed by the Presenting Officer
or the Government Servant or both during the course of the
inquiry; and
(e) the orders, if any, made by the disciplinary 20
authority and the inquiring authority in regard to the
inquiry."
8. A perusal of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965
would indicate that Sub-Rule 3 requires that where it is proposed 25
to hold an enquiry against a Government employee, the
Disciplinary Authority shall draw or cause to be drawn up the
substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour into
definite and distinct articles of charges which shall contain a
statement of all relevant facts, including an admission or 30
confession made by the Government employee and a list of
documents by which and a list of witnesses by whom the articles
WP 968 of 2008.odt
of charges are proposed to be sustained. Sub-Rule 4 requires that
the articles of charges and the list of documents and witnesses
have to be delivered to the Government employee, consequent to
which, the Government employee is required to submit within the
time specified, the written statement of his defence and state 5
whether he desires to be heard in person.
9. The placement of these Sub-Rules in Rule 14 of the
CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 would indicate that the supply of the
chargesheet and the list of documents and witnesses has to be 10
prior in point of time, so as to enable the charged Government
employee to prepare and file his written statement. The question
is whether mere supply of the list of documents, alone, without
the documents, annexed thereto, would satisfy the requirement of
Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA ) Rules, 1965. In other 15
words, whether the principles of natural justice which require a
reasonable opportunity to be afforded to the charged Government
employee would stand satisfied by mere supply of the list of
documents, sans the documents themselves, to enable him to
prepare an effective written statement/defence. 20
WP 968 of 2008.odt
10. The purpose of supply of the chargesheet, the list of
documents and the list of witnesses, is to enable the charged
Government employee to know what the charges, in the
contextual background of the documents, which claim not only to
support but also to prove them, are, and to prepare an effective 5
defence which would enable him to meet the charges. Mere
supply of the list of documents without making available the
documents on which the Disciplinary Authority seeks to rely upon
to bring home the charges, in our considered opinion, would not
satisfy the object of affording a reasonable opportunity to the 10
charged Government employee to meet the charges by preparing
an effective defence. The documents annexed with the list of
documents, to be filed with the chargesheet, in our considered
opinion, form an integral part of the chargesheet and therefore
Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 will have to 15
be read, so as to mean as including the supply of the documents
themselves to the charged Government employee, along with the
list of documents as contemplated therein, otherwise, the very
object of supply of the chargesheet, in order to enable the
charged Government employee to prepare an effective defence, 20
would stand frustrated.
WP 968 of 2008.odt
11. The argument that the supply of the list of
documents, would satisfy the object of enabling the charged
Government employee to prepare an effective defence, is clearly
misconceived, for the reason that the articles of charges are
framed on the basis of the documents, annexed to the list of 5
documents, and unless and until the documents annexed with the
list are perused, analysed and their import and effect understood
by the charged Government employee, he would not be in a
position to prepare an effective defence. Mere inspection of these
documents, in our considered opinion, also would not satisfy the 10
purpose and object of Sub-Rule 4 as that would also not be
considered to be equivalent or effective as supplying the
documents themselves. Inspection and supply of documents are
two different and distinct things altogether. Whereas the supply
of the documents would enable the charged Government 15
employee to peruse, sift and analyze them, at his leisure, the
mere inspection of the documents, may not have the same effect,
and therefore would not result in satisfying the object and
purpose of granting a reasonable opportunity to prepare an
effective defence, as is contemplated and mandatorily required by 20
the principles of natural justice. Sub-Rule 4; Sub-Rule 6 (iv); Sub-
WP 968 of 2008.odt
Rule 11 (i) as well as Sub-Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965
will, which merely provide for inspection, may then fall foul of
Article 14 of the Constitution, as on the one hand the prosecution
has full control and access to the documents annexed with the list
of documents, as against which, the charged Government 5
employee is denied such equal access to them, thereby creating
an inequality. Sub-Rule 4; Sub-Rule 6 (iv); Sub-Rule 11 (i) as well
as Sub-Rule 15 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 in order to save
them, from the vice of inequality, therefore will have to be read
down to mean that the supply of the list of documents or the 10
inspection as indicated therein would include the supply of the
documents themselves, to the charged Government employee.
Any other meaning put upon the language of the expression 'list
of documents', as contained therein would not satisfy the purpose
of affording a real and effective opportunity of defence to the 15
charged Government employee.
12. It is also material note that there are as many as 20
documents included in the list of documents, which also would
indicate that the mere inspection of these documents would not 20
serve the purpose of affording a reasonable opportunity to the
WP 968 of 2008.odt
charged Government employee in the matter of formulating an
effective defence in absence of the documents being supplied to
him, though it is not the volume which is material. It is also
necessary to note that the requirement of supply of the
documents, cannot be termed as a procedural requirement, but 5
would be a substantial requirement to be mandatorily followed,
as the documents, themselves form the basis of the charges
against the charged Government employee, which he has to meet
and without these documents being supplied, the charged
Government employee is deprived a right to a real, substantive 10
and effective defence.
13. State Bank of Patiala Vs. S. K. Sharma (supra) while
summarizing the principles, which it has held not to be
exhaustive, holds that in case of violation of a procedural 15
provision, the complaint should be examined from the point of
view of prejudice. The judgment itself creates exceptions to this in
respect of cases falling under 'no notice, no opportunity and no
hearing categories'. As indicated above, the requirement of
providing documents which form a part and parcel of the 20
chargesheet cannot be termed to be a procedural requirement
WP 968 of 2008.odt
and thus the present case would clearly be covered by the
exceptions as indicated in para 33(3) therein and there cannot be
any question of applying the test of prejudice. Narendra Nath
Bhalla (supra) goes on a general proposition and does not
consider the language of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which we 5
have held to be a substantial requirement to be mandatorily
followed and thus is of no assistance. Bidyut Kumar Mitra (supra)
also goes on the proposition that non supply of the document,
was not shown to have caused any prejudice, whereas the present
case, as indicated above, is covered by exceptions as indicated in 10
para 33(3) of State Bank of Patiala Vs. S. K. Sharma (supra),
which was distinguished on facts. Rajit Singh (supra) in para 15
and 16, itself holds that where it is found that the enquiry stands
vitiated on account of violation of the principles of natural justice,
the matter is to be remanded back for proceedings with the 15
enquiry from the stage of violation of the principles of natural
justice. M. J. James (supra) holds that violation of natural justice
must be tested on the principle whether observance of that rule
was necessary for just decision in the facts of that case. In the
instant case, we have already held that the requirement of supply 20
of the copies of the documents to the charged Government
WP 968 of 2008.odt
employee was mandatory, considering which M. J. James (supra)
is of no assistance to the learned counsel for the petitioners.
14. That takes us to the next contention that extraneous
material was considered by the Enquiry Officer in the conduct of 5
the enquiry. The CAT has recorded that the letter dated
31/08/1999, by Mr. Shrivastava, was not a part of the enquiry
proceedings and consideration thereof vitiates the enquiry. Mrs.
Chandurkar, learned counsel for the petitioners, does not dispute
that this letter did not form part of the record but has tried to 10
support the consideration of this communication on the
contention that the Charged Officer was aware of the same. This
cannot, in our considered opinion, be a ground to consider
material which was not a part of the record by the Enquiry Officer
while conducting the enquiry and forming an opinion as to the 15
guilt of the Charged Officer as any such consideration would
clearly again amount to denial of an opportunity to the Charged
Officer to effectively meet the allegations levelled against him,
based upon what was contained in the said letter. The enquiry
therefore has rightly held to have been vitiated on this count also. 20
WP 968 of 2008.odt
15. In view of the above discussion, we do not see any
reason to interfere in the impugned judgment. The writ petition is
therefore dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
Wadkar
Signed by: S.S. Wadkar (SSW)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 01/12/2023 17:31:06
