Civil Appeal No 146 of 1981
From the Judgment and Order dated 1051979 of the Allahabad High Court in SA No 512 of 1975
MK Ramamurthi Syed Ali Ahmad Mrs Jayashree Ahmad Syed Tanweer Ahmad and Mohan Pandey for the Appellant
VC Mahajan Hemant Sharma and CV Subba Rao for the Respondent
1104 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINGH J
The short question which arises in this appeal is whether the disciplinary proceedings taken against the appellant resulting in his dismissal are null and void as the Enquiry Officer failed to comply with the principles of natural justice in holding the enquiry
The question relating to the non compliance of principles of natural justice is founded on the grievance that a copy of paper No 5 although mentioned in the memo of charges was not supplied to the appellant and that he was not permitted to inspect the same
A learned single Judge of the High Court has answered the question against the appellant
Hence this appeal
The appellant was posted as fireman at Moghulsarai in Northern Railway in May 1964
On 28th May 1964 coal lying at Pusauli Station was fraudulently removed by some person giving out his name as Shambhu Tiwari
A criminal case was registered but on account of absence of reliable evidence a final report was submitted
It appears that during the preliminary enquiry held by the Department it was found that Chandrama Tewari the appellant had removed the coal lying at Pusauli Station posing himself as Shambhu Tiwari a coal contractor
On completion of the preliminary enquiry a charge sheet was issued to the appellant on 621967
The appellant filed reply to the charges denying the same
An Enquiry Officer was appointed before whom evidence was recorded and the appellant was afforded full opportunity of cross examining the witnesses
The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the appellant guilty of charges framed against him
The punishing authority accepted the enquiry report and issued orders on 2761969 dismissing the appellant from the service
The appellant filed a civil suit in the Trial Court for a declaration that the punishment of dismissal awarded to him was illegal and unconstitutional mainly on the ground that the enquiry had been held in violation of the principles of natural justice and he was denied reasonable opportunity of defence
A number of other grounds were also raised in the suit which need not be adverted as the controversy now is confined to the question of violation of the principles of natural justice alone
The trial court decreed the appellant s suit on 3111974
The decree of the trial court was confirmed in appeal by the District Judge by his order dated 2111974
On a second appeal being filed by the Union of India the High Court set aside the judgment and decree of the subordinate courts on the findings that the appellant had been afforded reasonable opportunity of defence and there was no violation of any principles of natural justice in the enquiry
1105 Learned counsel for the appellant Shri MK Ramamurthy contended that the memo of charges issued to the appellant expressly mentioned that paper No 5 was proposed to be relied by the Department against the appellant but in spite of demand being made by the appellant a copy of that document was not supplied to him nor was he permitted to inspect the same
In the absence of that document the appellant was handicapped in cross examining Shri AC Das Dy
SP SPE He further urged that failure to supply the copy of paper No 5 was in violation of the principles of natural justice rendering the proceedings resulting in the order of dismissal as void
He placed reliance on decisions of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs Chintaman AIR 1961 SC 1623 Trilokinath vs Union of India  Ors  The State of Assam  Anr
vs Mahendra Kumar Das  Ors   State of Punjab vs Bhagat Ram   State of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohd Sharif AIR 1982 SC 937 and Kashinath Dikshita vs Union of India  Ors
 We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and we have further considered the aforesaid authorities referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant but we do not find any merit in the appellant s submissions to justify interference with the High Court s judgment
Article 311 of the Constitution requires that reasonable opportunity of defence must be afforded to a government servant before he is awarded major punishment of dismissal
It further contemplates that disciplinary enquiry must be held in accordance with the Rules in a just and fair manner
The procedure at the enquiry must be consistent with the principles of natural justice
Principles of natural justice require that the copy of the document if any relied upon against the party charged should be given to him and he should be afforded opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and to produce his own witnesses in his defence
If findings are recorded against the government servant placing reliance on a document which may not have been disclosed to him or the copy whereof may not have been supplied to him during the enquiry when demanded would contravene principles of natural justice rendering the enquiry and the consequential order of punishment illegal and void
These principles are well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court
We need not refer to them
However it is not necessary that each and every document must be supplied to the delinquent government servant facing the charges instead only material and relevant documents are necessary to be supplied to him
If a document even though mentioned in the memo of charges is not relevant to the charges or if it is not referred to or relied upon by the enquiry officer or the punishing 1106 authority in holding the charges proved against the government servant no exception can be taken to the validity of the proceedings or the order
If the document is not used against the party charged the ground of violation of principles of natural justice cannot successfully be raised
The violation of principles of natural justice arises only when a document copy of which may not have been supplied to the party charged when demanded is used in recording finding of guilt against him
On a careful consideration of the authorities cited on behalf of the appellant we find that the obligation to supply copies of documents is confined only to material and relevant documents and the enquiry would be vitiated only if the non supply of material and relevant documents when demanded may have caused prejudice to the delinquent officer
In State of Madhya Pradesh vs Chintaman the respondent who was a police officer was dismissed from service on certain charges
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh quashed the order of dismissal on the finding that the enquiry was held in violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as the statement of witnesses recorded in the preliminary enquiry were not supplied to the concerned officer as a result of which he could not effectively cross examine the witnesses produced before the enquiry officer
This Court while upholding the view taken by the High Court observed that the departmental enquiries should observe rules of natural justice
The Court referred to the observations of Venkatarama Aiyar J in Union of India vs TR Verma 1958 SCR 499 stating it broadly and without intending it to be exhaustive it may be observed that rules of natural justice require that a party should have the opportunity of adducing all relevant evidence on which he relies that the evidence of the opponent should be taken in his presence and that he should be given the opportunity of cross examining the witnesses examined by that party and that no material should be relied on against him without his being given an opportunity of explaining them
Relying on the aforesaid observations the Court held that right to cross examine witnesses who give evidence against a delinquent officer is a very valuable right and if effective exercise of that right is prevented by the enquiry officer by not giving to officer relevant document to which he is entitled the enquiry cannot be said to have been held in accordance with the principles of natural justice
In Triloki Nath vs Union of India it was held that if a public servant facing enquiry was not supplied copies of documents it would amount to denial of reasonable opportunity
In that case the statement of witnesses recorded during the investigation of the criminal case registered against the delinquent officer prior to the 1107 departmental proceedings had not been supplied to him as a result of which the delinquent officer was prejudiced in his defence at the enquiry
In State of Assam and Anr
vs Mahendra Kumar Das  ors
J dismissal of a police sub inspector in pursuance of a disciplinary enquiry held against him had been set aside by the High Court on the ground that the enquiry officer had during the course of the enquiry consulted the Superintendent of Police Anti Corruption Branch and had taken into consideration certain material gathered from the AntiCorruption Branch without making the said material available to the sub inspector
On appeal by the State of Assam this Court held that it was improper for an enquiry officer during the conduct of an enquiry to collect any material from outside sources and in not making that material available to the delinquent officer
The Court observed that if the enquiry officer collects material behind the back of the delinquent officer and such material is relied upon by the enquiry officer without being disclosed to the delinquent officer the enquiry proceedings would be vitiated
After making these observations this Court recorded a finding that the enquiry officer had not taken into consideration the material contained in the records of Anti Corruption Branch and therefore failure to supply the material of the AntiCorruption Branch to the delinquent officer was of no consequence and it could not vitiate the enquiry
The Court set aside the order of the High Court on the finding that there had been no violation of principles of natural justice
In State of Punjab vs Bhagat Ram copies of statement of witnesses recorded during investigation and produced at the disciplinary enquiry in support of the charges framed against the delinquent officer were not supplied instead a synopsis of the statements had been supplied to him
This Court upheld the order of the High Court on the finding that it was unjust and unfair to deny the government servant copies of statement of witnesses recorded during investigation and produced in support of the charges levelled against the government servant
In the absence of the copies of the statement of witnesses the government servant could not have opportunity of effective and useful cross examine of the witnesses produced during the disciplinary enquiry
The Court observed that synopsis of statement did not satisfy the requirement of giving the government servant a reasonable opportunity
Same view was taken by this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohd Sharif as in that case also copies of the statement of witnesses recorded at the preliminary enquiry were not furnished to 1108 the delinquent government officer as a result of which the delinquent officer could not effectively cross examine the witnesses before the enquiry officer
In Kashinath Dikshita vs Union of India  ors this Court set aside the order of dismissal of a police officer on the finding that during the departmental proceedings the officer concerned was not supplied the copies of statements made by the witnesses at a pre enquiry stage and also the copies of the documents on which reliance was placed in support of the charges in spite of specific request being made by the officer
The Court held that the order of dismissal was violative of Article 311 2 in as much as the officer had been denied reasonable opportunity of defending himself
While setting aside the order of dismissal the Court observed that whether or not refusal to supply copies of documents or statements has resulted in prejudice to an officer facing the departmental enquiry depends on the facts of each case
After making this observation the Court examined the circumstances of that case and concluded that since 38 witnesses were examined against the officer and a large number of documents were relied upon against him and the disciplinary authority should have supplied the copies of the statement of witnesses recorded during the preliminary enquiry as we as the copies of the documents
Wherein agreement with the view taken in this decision It is now well settled that if copies of relevant and material documents including the statement of witnesses recorded in the preliminary enquiry or during investigation are not supplied to the delinquent officer facing the enquiry and if such documents are relied in holding the charges proved against the officer the enquiry would be vitiated for the violation of principles of natural justice
Similarly if the statement of witnesses recorded during the investigation of a criminal case or in the preliminary enquiry is not supplied to the delinquent officer as that would amount to denial of opportunity of effective cross examination
It is difficult to comprehend exhaustively the facts and circumstances which may lead to violation of principles of natural justice or denial of reasonable opportunity of defence
This question must be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case
While considering this question it has to be borne in mind that a delinquent officer is entitled to have copies of material and relevant documents only which may include the copy of statement of witnesses recorded during the investigation or preliminary enquiry or the copy of any other document which may have been relied in support of the charges
If a document has no bearing on the charges or if it is not relied by the 1109 enquiry officer to support the charges or if such document or material was not necessary for the cross examination of witnesses during the enquiry the officer cannot insist upon the supply of copies of such documents as the absence of copy of such document will not prejudice the delinquent officer
The decision of the question whether a document is material or not will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case
In the instant case there is no denying the fact that a copy of paper No 5 as mentioned in the charge sheet was not supplied to the appellant and he was not permitted to inspect the same
It appears that paper No 5 was the report submitted by the Special Police Establishment in respect of the criminal case of theft of coal in which final report had been submitted
After submission of final report in the criminal case disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the appellant
Paper No 5 the report was however not considered or relied by the enquiry officer in recording findings against the appellant
We have perused the copy of the report of the enquiry officer furnished to the Court by the appellant but we do not find any reference to paper No 5 therein
The enquiry officer has not either referred to nor relied upon that report in recording findings on the charges framed against the appellant
In this view the report paper No 5 was not a material or relevant document and denial of copy of that document could not and did not prejudice the appellant and there was no violation of principles of natural justice
The appellant s grievance that in the absence of report he could not effectively cross examine Shri AC Das Dy
SP Of Special Police Establishment the investigating officer is not sustainable
A copy of the statement as recorded by the enquiry officer has been placed before us by the appellant on a perusal of the same we find that Shri AC Das was cross examined at length in detail
His examination in chief is confined to one page while his cross examination runs into six full scape typed pages
The appellant has failed to point out as to how he was prejudiced
In our opinion the appellant was not handicapped in cross examining Shri AC Das his grievance that he was not afforded reasonable opportunity of defence is without any merit
In view of the above discussion we hold that the High Court was right in holding that the enquiry was fair and the principles of natural justice had not been violated
The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed
There will be no order to costs
SL Appeal dismissed


Summary:
 The respondent a State Government Corporation obtained decree for certain amount against the appellant and in execution proceedings a tea estate was brought for sale by court auction in 1969 but in the absence of a bidder the respondent itself had to purchase it at a higher price
The respondent however could take possession of the estate only in 1982
It then invited tenders for the sale of the estate
The appellant offered Rs600000
The next best offer was for Rs415550 and the third for Rs207451
The highest offer was accepted but the appellant could not pay the amount except the earnest money even after repeated extension of time and offer to receive the balance in instalments
The respondent then negotiated with the next highest bidder who enhanced the offer to Rs450000 which was accepted by the respondent
The property however was sold to a partnership firm in which the said bidder was a partner
The appellant thereupon moved the High Court complaining that the respondent in selling the property to the firm had deviated from the normal practice of inviting the tenders from the public and that the Corporation being a public authority was bound to act reasonably and fairly and it ought not be have arbitrarily selected the purchaser
The High Court declined to interfere
Dismissing the appeal  HELD The action of the respondent in offering the property to the person next in order by private negotiations and selling the same at 1080 his request to the partnership firm was perfectly justified
1087G The public property owned by the State or by any instrumentality of the State should be generally sold by public auction or by inviting tenders not only to get the highest price for the property but also to ensure fairness in the activities of the State and public authorities
They should act fairly
Their actions should be legitimate
Their dealings should be above board
Their transactions should be without aversion or affection and should not be suggestive of discrimination bias favouritism or nepotism
Ordinarily these facts would be absent if the matter is brought to public auction or sale by tenders
Though that is the ordinary rule it is not an invariable rule
There may be situations necessitating departure from the rule but then such instances must be justified by compelling reasons and not by just convenience
1086H 1087A C In the instant case the respondent dealt with the property in all fairness
It invited tenders for the sale of the property under the notification
The appellant submitted the highest tender in response to the said notification
He was granted all concessions and facilities for payment by instalments but he failed
If the appellant could not act according to his tender there was no reason why the property should not be offered to the person who was next in order
The respondent therefore did not do anything unfair with the second bidder after it had got the tender amount raised substantially
1087D F KN Guruswamy vs The State of Mysore  Ors  at 312 Mohinder Singh Gill  Anr
vs The Chief Election Commissioner New Delhi  Ors  RD Shetty vs The International Airport Authority of India State of Jammu and Kashmir  Anr   Fertilizer Corporation Kamagar Union vs Union of India   Ram and Shyam Company vs State of Haryana  Ors and Shri Sachidanand Pandey vs State of W B   applied