Whether non supply of copies of statements of witnesses recorded during preliminary enquiry will vitiate departmental enquiry?

Now, one of the principles of natural justice is that a person against whom an action is proposed to be taken has to be given an opportunity of hearting. This opportunity has to be an effective opportunity and not a mere pretence. In departmental proceedings where charge-sheet is issued and the documents which are proposed to be utilised against that person are indicated in the charge sheet but copies thereof are not supplied to him in spite of his request, and he is, at the same time, called upon to submit his reply, it cannot be said that an effective opportunity to defend was provided to him. see: Chandrama Tewari v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0617/1987 : [1988]1SCR1102 ; Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India and Ors., MANU/SC/0086/1986 : (1986)IILLJ468SC and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Sharif, MANU/SC/0198/1982 : (1982)IILLJ180SC .

5. In High Court of Punjab & Haryana v. Amrik Singh, MANU/SC/0917/1995 : (1995)IILLJ656SC , it was indicated that the delinquent officer must be supplied copies of documents relied upon in support of the charges. It was further indicated that if the documents are voluminous and copies cannot be supplied, then such officer must be given an opportunity to inspect the same, or else, the principles of natural justice would be violated.

6. Preliminary inquiry which is conducted invariably on the back of the delinquent employee may, often, constitute the whole basis of the charge-sheet. Before a person is, therefore, called upon to submit his reply to the charge sheet, he must, on a request made by him in that behalf, be supplied the copies of the statements of witnesses recorded during the preliminary enquiry particularly if those witnesses are proposed to be examined at the departmental trial. This principle was reiterated in Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India and Ors., MANU/SC/0086/1986 : (1986)IILLJ468SC (supra), wherein it was also laid down that this lapse would vitiate the departmental proceedings unless it was shown and established as a fact that non-supply of copies of those documents had not caused any prejudice to the delinquent in his defence.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

C.A. No. 2469 of 1982

Decided On: 30.07.1998

 State of U.P.  Vs.  Shatrughan Lal and Ors.

Citation: (1998) 6 SCC 651

Print Page

How to prove statements contained in power of attorney?

 It was then argued that the statement made by the notary public in the power of attorney regarding the articles of plaintiff-bank being contents of documents could be proved only by producing memorandum of articles. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Judicial Commissioner in Nar Bahadur Gurung v. Anil Krishna Bhattacharya, AIR 1970 Man 57. In this case, it was held that the statements contained in the powers of attorney have to be proved like any other statements. There is no quarrel so far as the principle of law is concerned. But, I have referred to these statements not for the purpose of using them as evidence to prove those facts but only to show the act of notarisation. Those statements do show that the notary public had satisfied himself about the authority of the executants of the power of attorney.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Suit No. 1290 of 1979

Decided On: 17.05.1982

Citibank N.A. Vs.  Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Co. Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Gian Chand Jain, J.

Print Page

Whether issue involved in suit should be decided on basis of statements of parties or their relation to estate?

Their Lordships regret that they are unable to accept the interpretation placed by the High Court upon the statements, and they agree with the trial Judge that the statements made by the two brothers in 1876 were false. It sometimes happens that persons make statements which serve their purpose or proceed upon ignorance of the true position; and it is not their statements, but their relations with the estate, which should be taken into consideration in determining the issue. The vital factor in a case of this kind is the nature of the interest which the members of the family have in the estate. As stated, if there has been a division of their right to, or severance of their interest in the estate, they must be held to be separate in status, though there has been no physical division of the property, and though there may be no separation in food or dwelling: Amritrao v. Mukundrao 1919 P.C. 91. If, on the other hand, there has been no such division of right or severance of interest, they continue to be joint in estate, and mere cesser of commensality would not make them separate in estate, as a member may become separate in food or residence for his convenience. A division of right or a severance of the joint status may result, not only from an agreement between the parties, but from any act or transaction which has the effect of defining their shares in the estate, though it may not partition the estate. If a document clearly shows a division of right, its legal construction and effect cannot be controlled or altered by evidence of the subsequent conduct of the parties: Balkishen Das v. Ram Narain Sahu (1903) 30 Cal. 738.

BEFORE THE PRIVY COUNCIL

Decided On: 17.07.1936

Alluri Venkatapathi Raju and Anr. Vs.  Dantuluri Venkatanarasimha Raju and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Roche, Shadi Lal and George Rankin, JJ.

Citation: AIR 1936 PC 264

Print Page