COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENTversusSHAMBU SARAN PANDEY AND ORS.

                  COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT                                 A
                                   v.
                SHAMBU SARAN PANDEY AND ORS.

                          OCTOBER 28, 1994

          [K. RAMASWAMY ANDN. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]                          B
    SERVICE LAW- Administrative Law- Natural Justice- Enquiry
Proceedings- Procedure- Filing of charge sheet- Prayer for inspection
of documents- In first instance delinquent to be given opportunity for
inspection and thereafter conduct enquiry- Delinquent to be heard at time
ofconclusion ofhis enquiry.                                               C
     The respondent, Principal of appellant's Institution was charged
for misappropriating certain funds belonging to the institution.
           a
Therefore, charge-sheet was given to the respondent, after appointing
an enquiry officer. Respondent replied to the charge-sheet and wanted
inspection of the documents mentioned in the charge sheet. The enquiry D
officer stated that since the respondent had already given the reply to
the charge sheet, he was at liberty to inspect the documents at the time
of final arguments. The respondent did not participate in the enquiry
and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report, on the basis of which a
show cause notice as to why he should not be dismissed from service
was issued to the respondent. The respondent requested the Committee E
to convene .a meeting in which he desired to submit his explanation.
But, the same was not given to the respondent. Thereafter with the
approval of the Vice Chancellor and the Chancellor, the appellant
dismissed the respondent from service.

    The respondent challenged the order of dismissal before .the High    F
Court. The order of dismissal was set aside by the High Court leaving
open the holding of fresh enquiry, if necessary. Hence this appeal

     The appellants denied that the documents required by the
respondent were not supplied nor was there any denial of opportunity G
to the respondent to examine his own witnesses; that the respondent did
not co-operate in the conduct of the enquiry and he did not as~ the
enquiry ofhcer for an opportunity to examine the witness on his behalf;
that the question of hearing him by the Committee did. not arise in the
absence of any provision in the bye-laws of the Society or. the rules, and
as such there was not violation of principles of natural justice.          H
                                  269
    270                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A         Dismissing the appeal, this Court

         HELD : 1.1. It is settled law that after the charge-sheet with
    necessary particulars, the specific averments in respect of the charge
    shall be made. If the department or the management seeks to rely on
    any documents in proof of the charge, the principles of natural justice
B   require that such copies of those documents need to be supplied to the
    delinquent. If the documents are voluminous and cannot be supplied to
    the delinquent, an opportunity has got to be given to him for inspection
    of the documents. If that opportunity was not given, it would violate the
    principles of natural justice. At the enquiry, if the delinquent seeks to
    support his defence with reference to any of the documents in the
c   custody of the management or the department, then the documents
    either may be summoned or copies thereof may be given at the request
    and cost of the delinquent. If he seeks to cross-examine the witnesses
    examined in proof of the charge he should be given the opportunity to
    cross examine them. In case he wants to examine his witness or himself
    to rebut the charge, that opportunity should be given. (272-C-E)
D
        1.2. In the instant cnse, at the earliest, the delinqueht sought for
   inspection of the documents. It was stated by the enquiry officer that
   inspection of documents would be given at the time of final hearing•
  .That obviously is an erroneous procedure followed by the enquiry
   officer. In the first instance he should be given the opportunity for
E inspection and thereafter conduct the enquiry and then hear the
   delinquent at the time of conclusion of his enquiry. In this case that
   procedure was not adopted and the enquiry conducted was clearly in
   violation of the principles of natural justice. However, it wo-.ld be open
   to the appellant to conduct an enquiry afresh and complete it within a
   period of six months. (272-F, H, 273- A, D)
F
         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7674 of
     1994.

         From the Judgment and order dated 52.93 of the High tourt of
     Allahabad in CMWP No. 11542/83.
G
          Raju Ramachandran, Prashant Kumar and Pradeep Misra for the
    Appellant.         ·

          Sunil Gupta and H.K. Puri for the Respondents.

H         The following Order of the Court was delivered.
            COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT v. S.S. PANDEY                    271

    Leave granted.                                                           A
      Admittedly, the respondent acted as a principal of the appellant's
 Institution. The charge levelled against the respondent was that he had
 misappropriated certain funds belonging to the Institution. Therefore, on
 March 22, 1991 (see 1981) a charge-sheet was given to the respondent,
after appointing an enquiry officer. The respondent had given the reply on B
April 13, 1981 to the charge-sheet. At the earliest, he wanted inspection of
the documents mentioned in the charge-sheet. Admittedly, neither the
documents had been supplied nor an opportunity of inspection had been
given to the respondent. Instead, the enquiry officer in his letter dated
 18.5.1981 had given the reply stating that since the respondent had already
given the reply to the charge-sheet item-wise, he was at liberty to inspect C
the documents at the time of final arguments on June 7, 1981. From time to
time, the enquiry was postponed. Ultimately, the respondent did not
participate in the enquiry. Consequently, the enquiry officer had submitted
his report on 9.5.82. Based on that report, on 23.6.1982 the show cause
notice as to why he should not be dismissed from service was given to the
respondent. The respondent had not submitted his explanation. However, he D
requested the Committee to convene a meeting in which he desired to
submit his explanation. But there being no provision to give hearing to an
employee in the meeting of the committee, the same was not given to the
respondent. The appropriate resolution has been passed by the appellant on
22.9.1982 to dismiss the respondent from service, subject to its approval by
the Vice Chancellor and the Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor in his E ·
proceedings dated 27 .1.1983 and the Chancellor in his proceedings dated
12.8.1983 had given their approval under the relevant provisions of the
U.P. Universities Act. Thereafter the appellant dismissed the respondent
from service.

     The respondent challenged the order of dismissal in W.P. No. F
11542/83 in the High Court at Allahabad. Pending its disposal the
respondent retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 12.12.1992. It
would appear that the respondent was re-appointed till the end of academic
year as per rules and on the expiry of the academic year he stood
superannuated according to rules w.e.f. 30.6.1993. The judgment was G
rendered on 5.2.1993 setting aside the orders of dismissal and leaving open
the holding of fresh enquiry, if necessary. This appeal by Special Leave has
been filed on 3.5.1993.

    It is contended by Shri Raju Ramachandran, the learned counsel for the
appellant that the High Court was not right in its conclusion that Lite      H
    272                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A   documents required by the respondent were not supplied nor is there any
    denial of opportunity to the respondent to examine his own witnesses. The
    respondent himself adopted dilatory tactics and he did not co-operate in the
    conduct of the enquiry. He did not ask the enquiry officer for an
    opportunity to examine the witness on his behalf. The question of hearing
    him by the Committee did not arise inasmuch as there is no such provision
B   in the bye-laws of the society or the rules. Therefor;e, there was no violation
    of principles of natural justice, on the facts of this case. We have heard the
    learned counsel for the respondent also.

         On the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that at the earliest
    the respondent sought for the inspection of documents mentioned in the
c   charge-sheet and relied on by the appellant. It is settled law that after the
    charge-sheet with necessary particulars, the specific avennents in respect of
    the charge ~hall be made.· If the department or the management seeks to rely
    on any documents in proof of the charge, the principles of natural justice
    require that such copies of those documents need to be supplied to the
    delinquent. If the documents are voluminous and cannot be supplied to th_e
D   delinquent, an opportunity has got to be given to him for inspection of the
    documents. It would be open to the delinquent to obtain appropriate
    extracts at his own expense. If that opportunity was not given, it would
    violate the principles of natu1al justice. At the enquiry, if the delinquent
    seeks to support his defence with reference to any of the documents in the
    custody of the management or the department, then the documents either
E   may be summoned or copies thereof may be given at his request and cost of
    the delinquent. If he seeks to cross-examine the witnesses examined in
    proof of the charge he should be given ,the opportunity to cross-examine
    him. In case he wants to examine his witness or himself to rebut the charge,
    that opportunity should be given. In this case, at the earliest, the delinquent
F   sought for inspe~tion of the documents. It is now admitted in the affidavits
    filed in this Court and in the letter written by the enquiry officer, that some
    of the documents were seized by the police after the murder of the Manager
                                                                                        ,t
    of the appellant-institution on 31.7.80 for investigation. In that case the
    respondent was also one of the accused charged for the offence.s under
     Section 302 read ·with Sec. 120-B I.P.C. It is now an admitted fact that in
G    Sessions Trial No. 228/81 dated 31.7.86 he was convicted for the said
    offence and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. It would
    appear that he filed an appeal in the High Court and bail was granted to
    him.

        It is stated in the letter written by the· enquiry officer that inspection of
H   documents would be given at the time of final hearing. That (\bviously is an
             COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT v. S.' S. PANDEY                    273

erroneous procedure followed by the enquiry officer. In the first instance he   A
should be given the opportunity for inspection and thereafter conduct the
enquiry and then hear the delinquent at the time of conclusion of his
enquiry. In this case that procedure was not adopted and the enquiry
conducted was clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Accordingly, we agree with the High Court, though for different reasons, in
the setting aside of the order of dismissal passed by the Management as         B
approved by the Vice-Chancellor and Chancellor on the respective dates
referred to hererinbefore.

     As observed by the High Court, it would be open to the appellant to
conduct an enquiry afresh after supplying the documents and to give an
opportunity to the respondent to inspect the documents and then take C
appropriate action according to la:w. Depending upon the result of the
enquiry, the respondent has since been superannuated, his pensionary
claims and other benefits are to be granted to him. Depending upon the
fresh enquiry, the question of payment of back wages would arise and the
management would take appropriate decision thereon. The appellant should
conduct and complete enquiry within a period of six months from the date D
ofreceipt of this order. It is needless to mention that the respondent should
co-operate in the enquiry to be conducted. In case he adopts dilatory tactics,
a notice in that behalf be given before forfeiting his right to participate in
the enquiry from that stage and to follow the procedure in conducting the
enquiry and to pass appropriate orders on the result of the enquiry.
                                                                                E
    The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

A.G.                                                       Appeal disposed.