Holding

A departmental enquiry is not vitiated by the non‑supply of a document that is not material or relied upon, and such omission does not violate the principles of natural justice.

Summary

Chandrama Tewari, a fireman in the Northern Railway, was dismissed after a departmental enquiry found him guilty of fraudulently removing coal. He challenged the dismissal, arguing that the enquiry violated natural justice because a document (paper No. 5) mentioned in the charge sheet was not supplied to him, hindering his defence. The Supreme Court examined whether the non‑supply of a document that was not relied upon or material to the findings constitutes a breach of natural justice. Relying on earlier case law, the Court held that only material and relevant documents need be provided; a document not used in the enquiry does not give rise to a violation. Since paper No. 5 was neither referred to nor relied upon by the enquiry officer, its non‑supply did not prejudice Tewari. Consequently, the High Court’s finding that the enquiry was fair was affirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the dismissal of a government servant is void for violation of natural justice when a document mentioned in the charge sheet is not supplied to the accused.
Whether a document that is not material or relied upon in the enquiry can be omitted without breaching the principles of natural justice.

Subjects

natural justicedisciplinary enquirydismissalmaterial documentright to defenceArticle 311government servant

Judgment

CHAND RAMA TEWARI
A
v.

UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER,
EASTERN RAILWAYS

B NOVEMBER 18, 1987
't

c
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.]

Disciplinary proceedings resulting in dismissal from service-
Whether null and void as a result of failure of the Enquiry Officer to
comply with the principles of natural justice. . °i' ..
-
Coal lying at the Pusauli Railway Station was fraudulently
removed by some person, giving out his name as Shambhu Tiwari, a
. coal contractor. A criminal case was registered, but on account of
absence of reliable evidence final report was submitted, During the
D preliminary enquiry held by the Department, it was found that
Chandrama Tewari, the appellant, who was posted as a fireman at
Moghulsarai in the Northern Railway, had removed the coal posing
himself as Shambhu Tiwari. A charge-sheet was issued to the appellant.
An Enquiry Officer was appointed before whom evidence was recorded. y
The appellant was afforded full opportunity of cross-examining the
E witnesses. The Enquiry Officer held the appellant guilty of the charges
framed against him. The punishing authority accepted the report of the
enquiry officer and passed orders, dismissing the appellant from
service. The appellant filed a civil suit for a declaration that the punish-
ment of dismissal was illegal and unconstitutional mainly on the ground
that the enquiry had been held in vi11,Iation of the principles of natural
-
as a copy of paper No. 5, mentioned in the Memo of charges, had not ~
F justice and he was denied reasonable opportunity of defence, inasmuch .
been supplied to him.

The trial court decreed the suit. The decree of the trial court was
confirmed in appeal by tbe District Judge. On a second appeal by the
G Union of India, the High Court set aside the decisions of the subordinate
courts, holding that the appellant had been afforded reasonable
opportunity of defence and there had been no violation of the principles :;.-
of natural justice in the enquiry. The appellant appealed to this Court
against the order of the High Court.

H Dismissing the appeal-, the court,
1102
CHANDRAMA TEWARI v. U.0.1. 1103

HELD: It is not necessary that each and every document mu~t he A
supplied to the delinquent government servant facing 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 authority in holding the charges proved B
against the government servant, no exception can be taken to the valid-
ity of the proceedings or the order passed on the ground of non-supply
of the copy of the order. If a document is not used against the party
charged, the ground of violation of principles of natural justice cannot
be successfully raised. Violation of the principles of natural justice
arises only when a document, a copy of which may not have been
supplied to the party charged, is used in recording findings of guilt C
against him. (llOSG-H; 1106A-B]

Copy of paper No. 5, mentioned in the charge-sheet, was not
supplied to the appellant and he was not permitted to inspect the same.
But that document was not considered, or relied upon by the enquiry D
officer in recording the findings against the appellant. Therefore, the
paper No. S was not a material or relevant document, and denial of a
copy of that document did not prejudice the appellant and there was no
violation of the principles of natural justice involved in the case. The
enquiry was fair. (1109D-E)
E
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chintaman, AIR 1961 SC 1623;
Trilokinath v. Union of India and Ors., (1967) SLR 759; State of Assam

- & Anr. v. Mahendra Kumar Das & Ors., (1971) 1 SCR 87; State of
Punjab v. Bhagat Ram, (1975) 2 SCR·370; State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Mohd. Sharif, AIR 1982 SC 937 and Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of
India and Ors., (1986) 3 SCC 229; relied upon by the appellant. F

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 146
of 1981.

From the Judgment and Order dated 10.5.1979 of the Allahabad
High Court in S.A. No. 512 of 1975. G

M,K. Ramamurthi, Syed Ali Ahm~d, Mrs. Jayashree Ahmad,
Syed Tanweer Ahmad and Mohan Pandey for the Appellant.

V.C. Mahajan, Hemani Sharma and C.V. Sobba Rao for the
Respondent. H
1104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 1 S.C.R.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A
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.
B The question relating to th€ 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 appel-
lant. Hence this appeal.

c 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
D 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 6.2.1967. The appellant filed reply to
the charges denying the same. An Enquiry Officer was appointed
E 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 27 .6.1969 dismissing the appellant from the service.
The appellant filed a civil suit in the Trial Court for a declaration that
F the punishment of dismissal awarded to him was illegal and unconstitu-
tional 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.
G The trial court decreed the appellant's suit on 31.1.1974. The decree of
the trial court was confirmed in appeal by the District Judge by his
order dated 2.11.1974. On a iecond appeal being filed by the Union of
India the High Court set aside the judgment and decree of the subordi-
nate courts on thel'. findings that the appellant had been afforded
reasonable opportunity of defence and there was no violation of any
H principles Of natural justice in the enquiry.
CHANDRAMA 1EWARI v. U.0.1. [SINGH, J.] 1105

Learned counsel for the appellant Shri M.K. Ramamurthy con- A
tended that the memo of charges issued to the appellant expressly
mentioned that paper N:o. 5 was proposed to be relied by the Depart-
ment 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 A.C. Das, Dy. B
S.P., S.P.E. 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 v.
Chintaman, AIR 1961 SC 1623; Trilokinath v. Union of India & Ors.,
(1967] SLR 759; The State of Assam & Anr. v. Mahendra Kumar Das
& Ors., [1971] 1SCR87;Stateof Punjabv.BhagatRam, [1975]2SCR C
370; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Sharif; AIR 1982 SC 937 and
Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India & Ors., [1986] 3 SCC 229.

We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions
made on behalf of the appellant and we have further considered the D
aforesaid authorities referred to by the learned counsel for the appel-
lant 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 punish-
ment of dismissal. It further contemplates that disciplinary e!,lquiry E
must be held iri 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 F
·......., 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 ill.;gal and void.
These principles are well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court. G
We need not refer to them. However, it is not necessary that each and
every document must be supplied to the delinquent government
-1 servant facing the charges instead only material and relevant docu-
ments 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 H
1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1988] I S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
C delinquent officer.
In State of Madhya Pradesh v. 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
p natural justice in as much as the statement of witnesses recorded in the
preliminary enquiry were not supplied _to the concerned officer 11s 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
E the observations of Venkatarama Aiyar, J. in Union of India v. T.R.
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
F 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 observa-
tions 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
G not giving to officer relevant document to which he is entitled, the
enquiry cannot be said to have been held in accordance with the princi-
ples of natural justice. In Triloki Naih v. Union of India, it was held
that if a public servant facing enquiry was not supplied copies of docu-
ments it would amount to denial of reasonable opportunity. In that
case the statement of witnesses recorded during the investigation of
fl the criminal case registered against the delinquent officer prior to the
CHANDRAMA TEWARI v. U.0.1. [SINGH, J.] 1107

departme.ntal proceedings had not been supplied to him, as a result of A
which the delinquent officer was prejudiced in his defence at the
enquiry.

In State of Assam and Anr. v. Mahendra Kumar Das & Ors.,
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 B
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 Anti-
Corruption 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 C
to collect any material from outside sources and in not making that
material available to the delinqueni officer. The Court observed that if
the enquiry officer collects ma_terial 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 observatiops this Court D
recorded a finding that the enquiry officer had not taken into consid-
eration the material contained in the records of Anti-Corruption
Branch, and therefore failure to supply the material of the Anti-
Corruption 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 E
principles of natural justice.

In State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram, copies of statement of witnes-
ses 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 sup- F
plied 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 G
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 v. Mohd, Sharif, as in that case also copies of the statement of
witnesses recorded at the preliminary enquiry were not furnished to . H

l
1108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1988] I S.C.R.

A 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 v. Union of India & Ors., this Court set aside
the order of dismissal of a police officer on the finding that during the
13 departmental pr9ceedings 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 th!'
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
C 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 circumst-
ances of that case and concluded that since 38 witnesses were
p examined agai1_1st 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 well as the copies of the documents. Wherein
agreement with the view taken in this decision.

E It is now well settled that if copies of relevant and material docu-
ments 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 state-
F ment 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
(J 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.
H If a document has no bearing on the charges or if it is not relied by the

'
CHANDRAMA TEWARI v. U.O.l. [SINGH, J.l 1109

enquiry officer to support the charges, or if such document or material A
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 docu-
ment is material or not will depend upon the facts and circumstances of
each case.
B

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 Establish-
ment in respect of the criminal case of theft of coal, in which final c
--~-
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 D
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 E
report he could not effectively cross-examine Shri A.C. Das, Dy. S.P.
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 A.C. Das, was cross-examined at length in detail. His
examination-in-chief is confined to one page while his cross- F
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 A.C. Das,
his grievance that he was not afforded reasonable opportunity of de-
fence is without any merit.
G
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 dis-
missed. There will be no order to costs.

S.L. Appeal dismissed.