Case: Union of India and Others Vs. M. B. Patnaik and Others

of an Inquiry Committee consisting of more than one person by the impression formed by him about the truthfulness or otherwise of a particular witness examined during the inquiry. From the stage antecedent to the framing of the charges everything is recorded in writing. The allegations on which the charges are based are made known to the railway servant and he is called upon to file his written statement after looking into all the relevant records. The oral evidence of all the witnesses tendered during the enquiry is recorded in writing. Whereas here the oral evidence is recorded in the presence of three persons constituting the Inquiry Committee, any impression created by the demeanour of a particular witness on the mind of any one member cannot affect the conclusion afterwards arrived at jointly by them. It can not be suggested that all the three persons would record t heir impressions separately about the demeanour of a witness and it is quite possible that a particular witness may appear to one member of the committee to be untruthful without his being considered so by the others. The members of the Inquiry Committee cannot record their findings separately, but it is their duty to record findings on each of the charges together with the reasons therefore. It is to be noted that the duty of the Inquiry Committee ends with the making of the report. The Disciplinary Authority has to consider the record of the inquiry and arrive at its own conclusion on each charge. Whatever may be the impression created by a particular witness on the min d of one member of the Committee, the same is never translated into writing and the Disciplinary Committee merely goes by the written record after giving a personal hearing to the railway servant if he asks for it. Even i f the Inquiry Committee makes a report absolving the railway servant of the charges against him, the Disciplinary Authority may, on considering the entire record come to a different conclusion and impose a penalty. This is amply borne out by a judgment of this Court in Union of India v. H.C. Goel (A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 364) where it was said that neither the findings nor the recommendations of the Inquiry Committee are binding on the Government. In such a state of affairs a change in the personnel of the Inquiry Committee after the proceedings are begun and some evidence recorded cannot make any difference to the case of the railway servant. The record will speak for itself and it is the record consisting of the documents and the oral evidence as recorded which must form the basis of the report of the Inquiry Committee. The Committee is not the punishing authority and the personal impress ion of a member of the Committee cannot possibly affect the decision of the Disciplinary Authority. In a state of affairs like this, we cannot see any reason for holding that any known principle of natural justice is violated w hen one member of the Committee is substituted by another." 7. It would appear from the above extract that it is not at all necessary that the enquiry which had been held in part by more than one enquiry officers should be continued by the same enquiry officers until the end. The post which the members of the Inquiry Committee held originally might have been ceased to exist at a later stage, or one or more of the members of the Inquiry Committee may no longer be available either on account of retirement or due to any other cause. For that reason, it could not be held that the enquiry could not be continued at all. Therefore, there could be no valid objection to the supplementary enquiry being continued by the v ery two individuals, even after they had ceased to hold their respective offices which they held at the time of the original enquiry. The plea of malafides raised against the two Inquiry Officers on behalf of P.N.L. Das, the respondent in C.A. No. 389 of 1981 before Misra and Panda JJ, when Writ Petition (O.J.C.) No. 579/71 was heard was rejected by the learned Judges who have observed in their judgment that after hearing the counsel they were satisfied that no good foundation has been laid for the plea of malafides, bias or prejudice by the enquiry officers and it was also conceded by the learned counsel who appeared for P.N.L. Das in that Writ Petition that on the material on records it may be difficult for him to persuade them to hold in favour of the petitioner before them in regard to the plea of mala fides. Therefore, we are clearly of the opinion there could be. no bar to B.K. Patnaik and B.B. Chatterjee who were originally the Assistant Commercial Superintendent, Khurda Road and Assistant Accounts Officer, Garden Reach respectively, holding the supplementary enquiry even after they ceased to hold their respective offices by reason of their promotion as Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Kharagpur and Divisional Accounts Officer, Adra sometime before the commencement of the supplementary enquiry. However, we agree with Misra and Mohanty JJ of the Orissa High Court that it would be inequitable for a fresh enquiry being made into the charge framed against the respondents in S. As. Nos. 2119- 2121/79 or to go into the merits of the case against P.N.L. Das the respondent in C.A. No. 389 of 1981, having regard to the long lapse of time, the offences having been stated to have been committed in about 1955. Mr. M.M. Abdul Khader, learned counsel for the appellants in these appeals represented before us that no recovery will be made from S/Shri Ch. R. Murty, B.S.N. Rao and B. Papa Rao who have retired from service and also from P.N.L. Das the in respondent in C.A. No. 389 of 1981 who has been reinstated subsequent to the decision of the Orissa High Court in Writ Petition (O.J.C.) No. 832 of 1977.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]It would appear from the above extract that it is not at all necessary that the enquiry which had been held in part by more than one enquiry officers should be continued by the same enquiry officers until the end. The post which the members of the Inquiry Committee held originally might have been ceased to exist at a later stage, or one or more of the members of the Inquiry Committee may no longer be available either on account of retirement or due to any other cause. For that reason, it could not be held that the enquiry could not be continued at all. Therefore, there could be no valid objection to the supplementary enquiry being continued by the v ery two individuals, even after they had ceased to hold their respective offices which they held at the time of the original enquiry. The plea of malafides raised against the two Inquiry Officers on behalf of P.N.L. Das, the respondent in C.A. No. 389 of 1981 before Misra and Panda JJ, when Writ Petition (O.J.C.) No. 579/71 was heard was rejected by the learned Judges who have observed in their judgment that after hearing the counsel they were satisfied that no good foundation has been laid for the plea of malafides, bias or prejudice by the enquiry officers and it was also conceded by the learned counsel who appeared for P.N.L. Das in that Writ Petition that on the material on records it may be difficult for him to persuade them to hold in favour of the petitioner before them in regard to the plea of mala fides. Therefore, we are clearly of the opinion there could be. no bar to B.K. Patnaik and B.B. Chatterjee who were originally the Assistant Commercial Superintendent, Khurda Road and Assistant Accounts Officer, Garden Reach respectively, holding the supplementary enquiry even after they ceased to hold their respective offices by reason of their promotion as Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Kharagpur and Divisional Accounts Officer, Adra sometime before the commencement of the supplementary enquiry. However, we agree with Misra and Mohanty JJ of the Orissa High Court that it would be inequitable for a fresh enquiry being made into the charge framed against the respondents in S. As. Nos. 2119- 2121/79 or to go into the merits of the case against P.N.L. Das the respondent in C.A. No. 389 of 1981, having regard to the long lapse of time, the offences having been stated to have been committed in about 1955.