Civil Appeal No 1234 of 1977
From the Judgment and Order dated 19874 of Allahabad High Court in Civil Writ Petition No 4827 of 1974 RK Garg and Shakeel Ahmed Syed for the appellant
Prithviraj Mrs section Dikshit SK Kulshreshta and P Mishra for the respondents 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VARADARAJAN J
This appeal by special leave is directed against an order of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated 1981974 dismissing in limine Miscellaneous Writ Petition No 4827 of 1974 which had been filed by the appellant for quashing the 246 first respondent s order dated 351974 removing him from service pursuant to the finding of the second respondent UP Administrative Tribunal Lucknow dated 1071972 that the appellant was guilty of three of the four charges framed against him
The appellant was employed as a Deputy Superintendent of Police at Pilibhit at the relevant time
The fourth charge of which the appellant has been exonerated was that he had transferred his Vespa Scooter bearing Registration No UPI 9117 and valued at more than Rs 500 to One Lal Mohd without obtaining the previous sanction of the appropriate authority and he thereby
contravened Rule 242 of the UP Government Servants  Conduct Rules 1956
The appellant s defence was that the transfer was effected through a reputed dealer and therefore previous sanction of the appropriate authority was not necessary
The Tribunal found that the transaction of sale of the scooter by the appellant to Lal Mohd was effected through Ms Anand Agencies automobile engineers and reputed dealers in scooters and therefore there was sufficient compliance with Rule 242
Charges 1 to 3 were more serious ones
The substance of the first charge was that the appellant while posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police at Pilibhit was granted 30 days leave with effect from 11111967 and had to resume his duties on 10121967 but failed to resume his duties and absented himself without previous permission or intimation to the Superintendent of Public and without good or sufficient cause
He failed to report about his whereabouts until an application was made by him on 2441968 for extension of the leave
The appellant s defence was that he suffered from an attack of a mental disease melancholia and was under the treatment of Dr Mukerji at Calcutta from 1121967 to 2041968 and he has informed about his sudden illness and had applied for extension of the leave directly and also through his wife and he had furnished his leave address when he proceeded on 30 days leave
The substance of the second charge was that while applying for extension of leave on 2041968 he attempted to willfully deceive the Inspector General of Police by attempting to make him believe that he had been ill from 1121967 to 2041968 and was under treatment of a doctor at Calcutta although in fact he had been to Pakistan during the period and had obtained a medical certificate through deceitful and fraudulent  means
The defence of the appellant was one of denial
He reiterated that he was under treatment of Dr Mukerji at Calcutta from 1121967 to 2041968 and contended that in that 247 period he was treated by Dr Das at Howrah from 1011968 to 3011968 for injuries to his nose
The substance of the third charge was that after having proceeded on leave with effect from 11111967 he unauthorisedly and unlawfully visited Karachi in Pakistan some time between 22111967 and 2041968 without any valid passport or travel document and the he by contravened section 3 of the Passport Act 1967
The appellant denied the charge and contended that he had never visited Karachi and had been suffering from melancholia and treated by Dr Mukerji at Calcutta
A number of witnesses for the department and some witnesses tor the defence were examined before the Tribunal which a after considering the oral and documentary evidence found charges 1 to 3 against the appellant
One Harish Kumar Superintendent of Police who was appointed as an assessor in the inquiry conduct before the Tribunal agreed with the findings of the Tribunal
Subsequently the Tribunal submitted copies of its findings to the Government with its recommendation that the appellant may be dismissed from service
The Governor accepted the Tribunal s findings took a tentative decision to dismiss the appellant from service and issued a second show cause notice dated 2991972 to him
The appellant submitted his interim reply and final reply on 19111972 and 31 31973 respectively
After considering the appellant s replies the Governor agreed with the Tribunal that the charges 1 to 3 are fully established against the appellant and ordered his removal from service by the order dated 181974
The appellant challenged his removal from service in WP No 4827 of 1974 which was dismissed in limine by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court
Hence this appeal by special leave
This appeal deserves to be allowed on a short point which unfortunately has not been noticed by the learned Judges of the High Court before dismissing the writ petition in limine
The appellant had prayed for summoning 8 witnesses for being examined in his defence by filing an application dated 1711972 for that purpose
The Tribunal dismissed that application on 1911972 on the ground that it had already taken into consideration the relevant rules in the Financial Code Volume III and that it does not consider it necessary to revise its views
The Tribunal observed in that order that the appellant has to bear the expenses of the witnesses who are private persons if he wanted to have them examined in his 248 defence
He was however given one week s time to deposit a sum of Rs900 initially by way of travelling and daily allowances for the witnesses as well as compensation for the loss of their professional income and he was ordered to make good any shortfall
The appellant had not deposited that amount and the witnesses had not been summoned for being examined in his defence
The question for consideration is whether on this account there is non compliance with the principles of natural justice
The Tribunal has relied upon Rule 20A of the Travelling Allowances Rules Financial Handbook Volume III in making the above order
Sub rule l of that Rule reads thus 20A 13 Persons who not being servants of the Government are called as witnesses in a departmental inquiry either by the authority conducting the inquiry or on behalf of the government servant whose conduct is under inquiry shall receive the same travelling allowance and diet money as are admissible to non official witnesses summoned in criminal cases provided that in the case of such persons who are called on behalf of the government servant whose conduct is under inquiry the payment of travelling allowance and diet money shall be subject to the following principles a travelling allowances may be Paid to witnesses summoned in the event of the government servant concerned clearing himself b such allowances will be paid only in respect of witnesses whose evidence is considered of material value by the authority conducting the inquiry and c in exceptional cases the authority conducting the  inquiry may on grounds to be recorded recommend to the Government that the principles laid down above be departed from owing to special reasons
In such cases it will be for the Government to decide after taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case whether the recommendation should be accepted or not
The authority conducting the inquiry shall determine the class of each witness for the purpose of calculating travel 249 ling allowance and diet money under the scale prescribed for witnesses in criminal case
 This sub rule is not quite clear for it does not say who should bear the expenses initially or whether the inference to be made by the inquiring authority under class c should be made before or 1 after the examination of the witnesses
Clause b of this sub rule seems to have been considered satisfied in the present case as the Tribunal had decided to summon the witnesses provided the amount was deposited by the appellant as directed
The appellant has contended in para 31 of his writ petition that in view of GO No 4l97 RVIIIA 500 14668 travelling allowance and diet money of witnesses to be examined before the Tribunal must have been paid by the State Government but he was asked to deposit a sum of Rs900 for the witnesses being summoned and this is in violation of the relevant provision relating to conduct of proceedings before the Tribunal
The said GO marked Annexure 11 to the writ petition relates to one Kunhi Ram and was evidently intended to clarify
Rule 20A of the Traveling Rules and it reads thus In continuation of GO No 1371 1VIII 2000 1061 dt
July 3 1961 I am directed to say that in the special appeal the appellant had contended that the additional SP Agra had asked him to deposit the expenses for TA etc
of defence witnesses before he summoned them
The position in this connection has been examined by the Govt and is being clarified here
Under para 4905 of the police regulations the SP has to decide whether he should refuse to summon a  witness whose evidence he does not consider material to the issue
The witnesses who are accepted by the SP for being produced in defence can be either summoned by him or allowed to be produced by the party charged So far as the question of payment of expenses for the journey by a defence witness is concerned it is not material when once a witness is permitted to be produced whether he is summoned officially or is called by the party charged himself
The responsibility for payment of travelling expenses to the defence witnesses produced during departmental trial conducted under section 7 of the Police Act is of the Government
Thus if a witness has been permitted to be produced in defence it is not open to the inquiring officer to lay down a condition that this travelling expenses should be first deposited 250 before he is summoned
However no expenses are to be paid for persons who are not permitted to be produced in defence
The position with regard to the payment of travelling expenses to the defence witnesses is as follows i Govt
servants who appear as defence witnesses to give evidence of the facts which come to their knowledge in their official capacity are governed by Rule 591 of the Financial Handbook Volume III for the purpose of travelling allowance ii As regards govt
servants who appear as witnesses to facts which have come to their knowledge in the private capacity and appear as private individuals the position under rule 592 of Financial Handbook Volume III is that they are entitled to receive their actual travelling expenses from the Court and as suck they will get TA on an ad hoc basis and as on tour
Thus if he is a Govt
servant travelling in a train  as an ordinary passenger and has to bear witness to that in his private capacity he should be paid TA as on tour
The Meharrirs of the Police Stations bringing records which they maintain at PSs in their official capacity will be governed by class 1 above
iii Non official witnesses called or allowed to be produced by the SP will get TA under rule 20A of Financial Handbook Volume Ill This GO makes it clear that responsibility for payment of travelling allowance to defence witnesses produced in departmental inquiry conducted under section 7 of the Police Act is of the Government and that if a witness has been permitted to be produced in defence it is not open to the inquiry officer to lay down a condition that his travelling expenses should be first deposited by the delinquent officer before the witness is examined
In the present case the Tribunal has considered the witnesses to be material but has insisted on the appellant depositing initially a sum of Rs 900 for the travelling expense and daily allowances of the witnesses with an obligation to make good any shortfall in those allowances and loss of professional income of the witnesses
Mr Prithvi Raj Senior Counsel appearing 251 for the respondent State did not contend that this GO does not A apply to the case of the appellant
Moreover the appellant was under suspension from 11121967 and there is nothing on record to show that he was financially sound and in a position to deposit the sum of Rs900 and pay any further amount which may be required to meet any shortfall in the travelling and daily allowances and the loss of professional income of the 8 more witnesses whom he wanted to be examined on his side
The failure to cause the production of those witnesses at the expense of the Government might have caused prejudice to the appellant for it cannot be predicated what conclusion the Tribunal would have reached in regard to charges 1 to 3 if the evidence of those witnesses was available for its consideration
We are therefore of the opinion that there is no compliance with the principles of natural justice in this case
The appeal has to be allowed on this short ground and it is accordingly allowed
The finding of the Tribunal that the appellant is guilty of charges l to 3 and the consequent order of the GovernmentGovernor removing the appellant from service are quashed
The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh disposal after summoning at government expense such of the material witnesses as the appellant may wish to be examined in his defence
The appellant shall be entitled to costs quantified at Rs 2000
It is needless to say that the appellant would be entitled to subsistence allowances from the date of his removal from service until the proceedings taken against him terminate and final order is passed
This shall be paid in six weeks


Summary:
In a departmental inquiry conducted by the second respondent UP Administrative Tribunal into certain charges levelled against the appellant a Deputy Superintendent of Police the Tribunal dismissed the application of the appellant praying for summoning 8 witnesses for being examined in his defence
The Tribunal relied upon rule 20A1 of the Travelling Allowances Rules Financial Handbook Volume III and observed that the appellant had to deposit the expenses of the witnesses who were private person if he wanted to have them examined in his defence within a specified time
The appellant did not deposit the amount and the witnesses were not summoned
Pursuant to the finding of the Tribunal the appellant was removed from service
The appellant filed a writ petition in High Court contending that in view of GO No 4197 RVIIIA50014668 travelling allowance and diet money of witnesses to be examined before the Tribunal must have been paid by the State Government but he was asked to deposit a sum of Rs 900 for the witnesses being summoned and this was in violation of the relevant provision relating to conduct of proceeding before the Tribunal
The High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine
In this appeal the question was whether on this account there was non compliance with the principles of natural justice Allowing the appeal  HELD There is no compliance with the principles of natural justice in this case
251C Rule 20A1 of the Travelling Allowances Rules Financial Handbook Volume III is not quite clear for it does not say who should bear the expenses initially or whether the reference to be made by the inquiring authority under clause c should be made before or after the examination of the witnesses
Clause b of this sub rule seems to have been considered 245 satisfied in the present case as the Tribunal had decided to summon the witnesses provided the amount was deposited by the appellant as directed
249B C GO No 4191 RVIIIA 500146 which was evidently intended to clarify Rule 20A of the Travelling Rules makes it clear that responsibility for payment of travelling allowance to defence witnesses produced in departmental inquiry conducted under section 7 of the Police Act is of the Government and that if a witness has been permitted to be produced in defence it is not open to the inquiry officer to lay down a condition that his travelling expenses should be first deposited by the delinquent officer before the witness is examined
250G H In the present case the Tribunal has considered the witnesses to be material but has insisted on the appellant depositing initially a sum of Rs 900 for the travelling expense and daily allowance of the witnesses with an obligation to make good any shortfall in those allowances and loss of professional income of the witnesses
The respondent State did not contend that this GO does not apply to the case of the appellant
Moreover the appellant was under suspension from 11 12 1967 and there is nothing on record to show that he was financially sound and in a position to deposit the sum of Rs 900 and pay any further amount which may be required to next any shortfall in the travelling and daily allowances and the loss of professional income of the 8 more witnesses whom he wanted to be examined on his side
The failure to cause the production of those witnesses at the expense of the Government might have caused prejudice to the appellant for it cannot be predicated what conclusion the Tribunal would have reached in regard to charges 1 to 3 if the evidence of those witnesses was available for its consideration
250H 251 A C