STATE OF U.P.versusRAVINDER NATHCHATURVEDI AND ANR.
- Citation
- 1995 INSC 503
- Decided
- 28 August 1995
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the inquiry was vitiated by denial of a reasonable opportunity to the respondents and lack of evidentiary examination, and therefore ordered a fresh inquiry to be conducted in accordance with natural justice.
Summary
The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed against the Allahabad High Court's order that set aside a disciplinary penalty imposed on Ravinder Nath Chaturvedi and another respondent. The High Court had held that the respondents were not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard during the inquiry and that no witness was examined to prove the State's case. The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal, finding that the inquiry violated principles of natural justice and was procedurally defective. It directed that a competent Inquiry Officer be appointed (or, if already in service, conduct the inquiry) and that the inquiry be completed within four months, with the report supplied to the respondents. The State Government was further instructed to consider the report and take a decision within three months of its receipt. No costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether the disciplinary inquiry complied with the principles of natural justice by affording the respondents a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
- Whether the absence of any examination of witnesses to prove the State's case vitiated the inquiry.
- Whether a fresh inquiry should be ordered and the procedural timeline for its completion.
Subjects
Judgment
A STATE OF U.P.
v.
RAVINDER NATH'CHATURVEDI AND ANR.
AUGUST 28, 1995
B [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]
Se1vice Law
Dismissal order-Setting aside of by High Court-State's appeaf-
C Direction by Supreme Cowt.
The High Court set aside the penalty imposed on the respondents
on the ground that no reasonable opportunity was given to them during
the inquiry by the Inquiry Officer.
D Allowing the State's appeal and setting aside the order of the High
Court, this Court
HELD : No one was examined to prove the case of the State. It is
desirable that an officer who is acquainted with the records may be
examined to prove the documentary evidence and opportunity may be given
E to the respondents to cross-examine the witness or produce any evidence
in rebuttal. Thereafter, inquiry will be conducted within four months from
the date of this order, the report will be given and copy thereof will be
supplied to the respondents. The State Government is further directed to
consider the inquiry report and take appropriate decision within three
F months of submission of Report. [109-B-C; D-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7848 of
1995.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.4.94 of the Allahabad, High
G Court in W.P. No. 7918 of 1986.
D.V. Sehgal and R.B. Misra for the Appellant.
AB. Mathur, M.R. Vij and Shrish Kr. Misra for the Respondents.
H The following Order of the Court was delivered :
108
STATE v. R.N. CHATURVEDI 109
Leave granted. Heard le~rned counsel for the parties. A
The High Court has set aside the imposition of the penalty on the
respondents on the ground that no reasonable opportunity was given to the
respondents during the inquiry by the Inquiry officer. It is also found that
no one was examined to prove the case of the State. It would be desirable
that an officer who is acquainted with the records may also be examined B
to prove the documentary evidence and opportunity may be given to the
respondents to cross-examine the witness or produce any evidence in
rebuttal. Thereafter, inquiry will be conducted, the report will be given and
copy thereof will be supplied to the respondents.
The order of the High Court in accordingly set aside. The Inquiry
c
Officer, if he is still in service is directed to conduct and complete the
inquiry within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this
Order. If he is not in service, the State is directed to appoint another
Inquiry Officer afresh who would do the needful within the said period.
D
In case of fresh appointment of Inquiry Officer, the State Govern-
ment is directed to appoint an Inquiry Officer within one month from the
date of receipt of this Order. After submission of the report by the Inquiry
Officer, the State Government is further directed to consider the inquiry
report and take appropriate decision within three months thereafter.
E
The appeal is accordingly allowed with the above directions. No
costs.
T.N.A. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.