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 of procedure, which govern proceedings in court. The only obligation 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 fit opportunity must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but where such an opportunity had 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.
(A) Evidence — recording of
(B) Evidence — previous statements, as examinationin- chief
Previous statement can be marked on its admission by the witness during departmental inquiry, provided the person charged is given a copy thereof and an opportunity to cross-examine him.
Print Page
(A) Evidence — recording of
(B) Evidence — previous statements, as examinationin- chief
Previous statement can be marked on its admission by the witness during departmental inquiry, provided the person charged is given a copy thereof and an opportunity to cross-examine him.
State of Mysore vs. Shivabasappa Shivappa Makapur,
AIR 1963 SC 375
AIR 1963 SC 375
The respondent entered service in the Police department as a constable in the district of Dharwar in 1940 and was at the material time a Sub-Inspector of Police. On a complaint received against him, preliminary investigation was made and disciplinary proceedings were conducted. During the departmental inquiry, in accordance with the provision of clause (8) of section 545 of the Bombay Police Manual, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the disciplinary authority, who conducted the inquiry, recalled the witnesses who had been examined during the preliminary investigation, brought on record the previous statements given by them and after putting a few questions to them tendered them for cross-examination by the respondent and they were cross-examined by the respondent in great detail. The respondent was ultimately dismissed from service.
The High Court of Mysore held on a writ petition filed by the respondent that principles of natural justice required that the evidence of witnesses in support of the charges should be recorded in the presence of the enquiring officer and of the person against whom it is sought to be used. The High Court also held that section 545 (8) of the Bombay Police Manual was bad as it contravened principles of natural justice. They accordingly held that the enquiry was vitiated by the admission in evidence of the statements made by the witnesses in the preliminary investigation, without an independent examination of them before the Deputy Superintendent of Police conducting the enquiry. In the result the High Court set aside the order of dismissal.
On an appeal filed against the High Court order, the Supreme Court held that 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 of procedure, which govern proceedings in court. The only obligation 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 fit opportunity must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but where such an opportunity had 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 inquiry 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 examination 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 the witness is called, the statement given previously by him behind the back of the party is put 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. The Supreme Court held that clause (8) of section 545 of the Bombay Police Manual which laid down the procedure cannot be held to be bad as contravening the rules of natural justice.
The High Court of Mysore held on a writ petition filed by the respondent that principles of natural justice required that the evidence of witnesses in support of the charges should be recorded in the presence of the enquiring officer and of the person against whom it is sought to be used. The High Court also held that section 545 (8) of the Bombay Police Manual was bad as it contravened principles of natural justice. They accordingly held that the enquiry was vitiated by the admission in evidence of the statements made by the witnesses in the preliminary investigation, without an independent examination of them before the Deputy Superintendent of Police conducting the enquiry. In the result the High Court set aside the order of dismissal.
On an appeal filed against the High Court order, the Supreme Court held that 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 of procedure, which govern proceedings in court. The only obligation 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 fit opportunity must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but where such an opportunity had 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 inquiry 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 examination 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 the witness is called, the statement given previously by him behind the back of the party is put 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. The Supreme Court held that clause (8) of section 545 of the Bombay Police Manual which laid down the procedure cannot be held to be bad as contravening the rules of natural justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment