Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
VIJAY KUMAR NIGAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF M.OP. & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/11/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
Present:
Hon’ble Mr.Justice K. Ramaswamy
Hon’ble Mr.Justice G.B.Pattanaik
Nemo for the appellants.
S.K. Agnihotri, Adv. for the Respondents
O R D E R
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
Though the legal representatives of the appellant have
been brought on record, they did not appear either in person
or through counsel. We have taken the assistance of Shri
S.K. Agnihotri, learned counsel for the State.
The appellant, while working as Sub-Inspector, and
being in-charge of the Police Station Pakhanjur, District
Jagadalpur, on receipt of illegal gratification failed to
prevent the running of common gambling house of one
N.K.Ghosh. Consequently, in the departmental enquiry
initiated against him, the Enquiry Officer, after due
enquiry and giving him opportunity, found that the appellant
had received illegal gratification form the organiser of
gambling, N.K.Ghosh. Thereby, misconduct was proved against
him, Based thereon, he was dismissed from service by order
dated July 31,1971. On appeal, it was confirmed by the
Inspector General of Police by order dated January 21,1974.
The same came to be challenged in the Misc.Petition
No.204/74. The Division Bench of the High Court in the
impugned judgment dated May 2,1978, dismissed the same.
Thus, this appeal by special leave.
Two grounds have been pressed for consideration in the
High Court and reiterated in the appeal. The main ground was
that the report of the preliminary enquiry conducted against
him before initiating departmental enquiry, was not supplied
to him and, therefore, it is violative of the principle of
natural justice. The High Court has rejected the contention
an, in our view quite, rightly. The preliminary report is
only to decide and assess whether it would be necessary to
take any disciplinary action against the delinquent officer
and it does not form any foundation for passing the order of
dismissal against the employee. The High Court also found as
a fact that at the statements of persons that formed basis
for report, recorded during the preliminary enquiry were
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
supplied to the delinquent officer. It was then contended
that one of the constables, namely, Palairam was a co-
accused who was also charge along with the appellant and his
evidence was taken into consideration in deciding against
the appellant which is inadmissible in evidence. In a
departmental enquiry, the question, whether or not any
delinquent officer is co-accused with other does not arise.
That would arise in a prosecution laid for officer under the
IPC or Prevention of Corruption Act. The evidence recorded
in the departmental enquiry stricto senso is not evidence as
per the provisions of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the
statement of Palairam also formed part of the record which
could be taken into account in adjudging the misconduct
against the appellant. The Inspector General of Police had
stated that even if that evidence was excluded form
consideration, there was other sufficient evidence to come
to the conclusion that the appellant had taken illegal
gratification for the organiser of gambling, Thus, the High
Court has not committed any error of law in dismissing the
writ petition of the appellant.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.