Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
PETITIONER:
STATE OF U.P
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
RAVINDER NATH CHATURVEDI & ANR
DATE OF JUDGMENT28/08/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:
JT 1995 (6) 614 1995 SCALE (5)86
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
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 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 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.
In case of fresh appointment of Inquiry Officer, the
State Government 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.
The appeal is accordingly allowed with the above
directions. No costs.