Civil Appeal No 847 of 1974
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Decree dated the 3 10 72 of the Mysore High Court in Regular Second Appeal No 729 of 1967
section section Javali and H K Puri for the Appellant
Narain Nettar for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JASWANT SINGH J
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and decree dated October 3 1972 passed by a Single Judge of the Mysore High Court whereby allowing the respondent s second appeal No 729 of 1967 he set aside the appellate judgment and decree dated April 18 1967 passed by Civil Judge Belgaum declaring the order dismissing the appellant from service as illegal and ultra vires
Facts material for the purpose of this appeal are The appellant herein was a Police Constable attached to Khade bazar Police Station at Belgaum in 1960
In the small hours of the morning of November 17 1960 the Cantonment Police intercepted a tonga transporting smuggled illicit liquor in four tubes from Devi Temple to the cantonment area with the intention of disposing of the same to bootleggers
After registering a case under section 66b of the Bombay Prohibition Act the Cantonment PSI proceeded against the tonga driver and another person who was found following the tonga in a criminal court of competent jurisdiction and succeeded in securing their conviction for the aforesaid offence
On November 18 1960 the Cantonment PSI submitted a confidential report about the incident to the Superintendent of Police Belgaum and brought to the notice of the latter 915 that some police constables including the appellant who were newly recruited and attached to different police stations in Belgaum were indulging in smuggling illicit liquor
On receipt of this report the Superintendent of Police directed the PSI Khade bazar police station to record the statements of three constables namely M Y Akki Waman Mangesh and Nishikant Shimaji Satyannawar
Pursuant to these directions the PSI recorded the statements of the aforesaid police constables in the presence of the Superintendent of Police
The statement of Nishikant and Akki constables disclosed their own and six other police constables complicity in the aforesaid smuggling activity
The Superintendent of Police thereupon suspended the appellant and the other six constables and ordered the SDPO to hold a departmental enquiry against them
The Superintendent of Police also transferred all the seven deliquents from Belgaum and directed that they would not leave their new stations without his permission except for purposes of or in connection with the department enquiry
Though the appellant sought permission to stay at Belgaum during the period of his suspension his request was refused
As the appellant did not plead guilty to the charge framed against him the Enquiry Officer proceeded to hold the enquiry against him in accordance with the rules contained in the Bombay Police Manual 1950
On the conclusion of the enquiry during the course of which a number of witnesses were examined both by the prosecution and the defence the Enquiry Officer reported to the Superintendent of Police on November 10 1961 that the charge against the appellant was not established
He however recommended that the appellant should be administered a severe warning as he was convinced that he had been guilty of misconduct and dereliction of duty
The Superintendent of Police did not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and directed him to examine police constable Akki whose statement had been recorded before the charge was framed against the appellant
Akki was accordingly examined but he resiled from his earlier statement
The Enquiry Officer in the course of his second report dated November 30 1961 submitted to the Superintendent of Police that no fresh evidence was forthcoming against the appellant
He however stuck to his former recommendation regarding administration of severe warning to the appellant
The Superintendent of Police again disagreed with the report of the Enquiry Officer and found that there was sufficient evidence against the appellant to prove his guilt
Accordingly he issued a notice to the appellant on December 20 1961 calling upon the latter to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service
Not feeling satisfied with the explanation tendered by the appellant the Superintendent of Police passed an order on February 9 1962 dismissing the appellant from service
Aggrieved by this order the appellant went up in appeal to the DIG of Police but was unsuccessful
He also took the matter in revision to the Government but there also he failed
Eventually he brought a suit in the Court of the IInd Additional Munsiff Belgaum challenging the aforesaid orders of his dismissal and claiming the arrears of his pay
916 The principal contentions raised by the appellant were two fold 1 That no reasonable opportunity was given to him to dedend himself and 2 that the Superintendent of Police was wrong in relying on the statements of the witnesses recorded before the charge was framed against him and in re assessing the evidence contrary to the conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer who held that there was no evidence to substantiate the charge against him
After a regular trial the suit was dismissed by the Munsiff Belgaum
On appeal the Civil Judge Belgaum reversed the judgment of the Munsiff and decreed the suit
Aggrieved by the decision of the Civil Judge Belgaum the State Government preferred an appeal to the High Court of Mysore which as stated above was allowed
Counsel for the appellant has while supporting the appeal vehemently contended that the aforesaid judgment and decree of the High Court cannot be sustained as the appellant was deprived of a reasonable opportunity of defending himself during the course of the departmental enquiry
Elaborating his submission counsel has urged that as restrictions were placed on the movement of the appellant and he was not permitted to remain at Belgaum during the period of his suspension and evidence of some of the prosecution witnesses was recorded in his absence there has been a gross violation of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice
Counsel has further contended that the impugned judgment and decree cannot also be sustained as there is no cogent and legal evidence to establish the charge against the appellant
It is well settled that whether a delinquent had a reasonable opportunity of effectively defending himself is a question of fact depending upon the circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid in that behalf
In the instant case the order restricting the movement of the appellant on which strong reliance has been placed on his behalf for assailing the impugned order of his dismissal was not such as can be said to have deprived him of a reasonable opportunity of making his defence
The order it would be noted did not place any embargo on the appellant s going to Belgaum for the purpose of and in connection with the departmental enquiry
In fact the appellant fully participated in the enquiry held at that place
He also made full use of the assistance of a police man called police friend provided to him to conduct the defence on his behalf
The police friend appeared on his behalf before the Enquiry Officer and cross examined all the witnesses whom the prosecution examined or tendered for cross examination
He was also furnished with copies of the statements of the three police constables recorded by the Cantonment PSI and allowed an adequate opportunity of cross examining them
There is also nothing to indicate that the appellant s request for an opportunity to examine any witness in his defence was refused
In fact he did examine some witnesses in his defence
In view of all this it cannot be held that a reasonable opportunity of defending himself as contemplated by Article 311 of the Constitution was denied to the appellant
917 Regarding the appellant s contention that there was no cogent evidence to substantiate the charge against him it may be observed that neither the High Court nor this Court can re examine and ressess the evidence adduced in domestic enquiries of the nature with which we are at present concerned
Whether or not there is sufficient evidence against a delinquent to justify his dismissal from service is a matter on which this Court cannot embark
It may also be observed that departmental proceedings do not stand on the same footing as criminal prosecutions in which high degree of proof is required
It is true that in the instant case reliance was placed by the Superintendent of Police on the earlier statements made by the three police constables including Akki from which they resiled but that did not vitiate the enquiry or the impugned order of dismissal as departmental proceedings are not governed by strict rules of evidence as contained in the Evidence Act
That apart as already stated copies of the statements made by these constables were furnished to the appellant and he cross examined all of them with the help of the police friend provided to him
It is also significant that Akki admitted in the course of his statement that he did make the former statement before the PSI Khade bazar police station Belgaum on November 21 1961 which revealed appellant s complicity in the smuggling activity but when asked to explain as to why he made that statement he expressed his inability to do so
The present case is in our opinion covered by a decision of this Court in State of Mysore vs Shivabsappa1 where it was held as follows Domestic tribunals exercising quasi judicial functions are not courts and therefore they are not bound to follow the procedure prescribed for trial of actions in courts nor are they bound by strict rules of evidence
They can unlike courts obtain all information material for the points under enquiry from all sources and through all channels without being fettered by rules and procedures which govern proceedings in court
The only obligation which the law casts on them is that they should not act on any information which they may receive unless they put it to the party against whom it is to be used and give him a fair opportunity to explain it
What is a fair opportunity must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but where such an opportunity has been given the proceedings are not open to attack on the ground that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the procedure followed in courts
In respect of taking the evidence in an enquiry before such tribunal the person against whom a charge is made should know the evidence which is given against him so that he might be in a position to give his explanation
When the evidence is oral normally the explanation of the witness will in its entirety take place before the party charged who will have full opportunity of cross examining him
The position is the same when a witness is called the statement given previously by him behind the back of the party is put 918 to him and admitted in evidence a copy thereof is given to the party and he is given an opportunity to cross examine him
To require in that case that the contents of the previous statement should be repeated by the witness word by word and sentence by sentence is to insist on bare technicalities and rules of natural justice are matters not of form but of substance
They are sufficiently complied with when previous statements given by witnesses are read over to them marked on their admission copies thereof given to the person charged and he is given an opportunity to cross examine them Following the above decision this Court held in State of UP vs Om Prakash1 that the enquiry is not vitiated if the statements taken at the preliminary stage of enquiry are made available to the delinquent officer and he is given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses in respect of those statements
The decision of this Court in Ghanshyam Das Shrivastava vs State of Madhya Pradesh2 on which strong reliance is placed is clearly distinguishable and is not at all helpful to the appellant
In that case the appellant was deprived of the opportunity to defend himself by participating in the enquiry which was held at Jagdalpur 500 kilometres away from Rewa where the appellant was residing on account of paucity of funds resulting from non payment of subsistence allowance during his suspension
For the foregoing reasons we do not find any force in the contention of counsel for the appellant that there was no evidence on the record which could justify the appellant s dismissal from service
Both the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant being without any substance we find ourselves unable to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the High Court
The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case without any order as to costs
PHP Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant was a Police Constable
Some persons were convicted for transporting smuggled illicit liquor under section 66b of the Bombay Prohibition Act
The Police Sub Inspector submitted a Confidential report on that incident to the Superintendent of Police and pointed out that some Police Constables including the appellant were indulging in smuggling illicit liquor
The Superintendent of Police directed the PSI to record the statements of three constables Akki Waman and Nishikant
The Police Sub Inspector therefore recorded the statements of those constables in the presence of the Superintendent of Police
The statements of Akki and Nishikant disclosed their complicity as well as complicity of six other Police constables including the appellant DSP ordered the SDPO to hold a departmental enquiry against them
They were all transferred from Belgaum and directed not to leave their new station without the permission of the DSP except for purposes of or in connection with departmental enquiry
The appellant did not plead guilty
The Enquiry Officer held enquiry
A number of witnesses were examined both by the prosecution and the defence
The Enquiry Officer made a report to the Superintendent of Police that the charge against the appellant was not established
He however recommended that the appellant should be administered a severe warning since he was guilty of misconduct and dereliction of duty
The Superintendent of Police did not agree with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and directed him to examine Police Constable Akki whose statement had been recorded before the enquiry was ordered against the appellant
Akki was accordingly examined but he resiled from his earlier statement
The Enquiry Officer again submitted a further report and struck to his former recommendation regarding administration of severe warning to the appellant
The Superintendent of Police disagreed with the report of the Enquiry Officer and found that there was sufficient evidence against the appellant to prove his guilt
Accordingly he issued a notice to the appellant calling upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service
Not feeling satisfied with the explanation tendered by the appelant the Superintendent of Police passed an order dismissing the appellant from service
An appeal filed to the DIG was unsuccessful and so was a revision to the Government
Thereafter the appellant filed a suit challenging the order of dismissal and claiming arrears of pay
The Trial Court dismissed the suit
The Lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the Trial Court
The High Court allowed the second appeal filed by the State
In an appeal by Special Leave the appellant contended 1 The appellant was deprived of a reasonable opportunity of defending himself during the course of the departmental enquiry
He was not permitted to remain at Belgaum during the period of his suspension
Evidence of some of the prosecution witnesses was recorded in his absence
2 The impugned judgment and decree cannot be sustained as there is no cogent legal evidence to establish the charge against the appellant
Dismissing the appeal  HELD 1 Whether a delinquent had a reasonable opportunity of effectively defending himself is a question of fact depending on circumstances of each 914 case and no hard and fast rule can be laid in that behalf
In the instant case the order restricting his movement was not such as can be said to have deprived him of reasonable opportunity of making his defence
The order did not place any embargo on the appellant going to Belgaum for the purpose of and in connection with the departmental enquiry
In fact the appellant fully participated in the enquiry held at that place
He also made full use of the assistance of a policeman called Police friend Provided to him to conduct the defence on his behalf
He was furnished with the statements recorded of the 3 constables before the enquiry was ordered
The witnesses examined by the prosecution were tendered for cross examination
It therefore cannot be held that a reasonable opportunity as contemplated by Article 311 of the Constitution was denied to the appellant
916 D G 2 Neither the High Court nor this Court can re examine and reassess the evidence in domestic enquiries of the instant nature
Whether or not there is sufficient evidence agaiast a delinquent to justify his dismissal from service is a matter on which this Court cannot embark
The departmental proceedings do not stand on the same footing as criminal proceedings in which high degree of proof is required
The departmental proceedings are not covered by strict rules of evidence as contained in the Evidence Act
A copy of the statement made by Akki earlier was furnished to the appellant and he examined all the 3 constables including Akki who made statements before the enquiry was ordered
916 H 917 A C State of Mysore vs Shivasappa     State of UP vs Om Prakash AIR followed Ghanshyam Das Shrivastava vs State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1973 SC 1183 distinguished