# [1967] 3 S.C.R. 848

- **Citation:** [1967] 3 S.C.R. 848
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1967-05-01
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1260 of 1966
- **Bench:** M. HlOAYATULLAH, C. A. Vaidialingam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1967-3-s-c-r-848-4029
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, r . . 55, Suhu. (I) and (3)-Difference in nature of enquiries under the two subrules-Enquiry under sub-r. (I) relates to misconduct affecting character
·Of a Govenunent servant-Full opportunity to defend himself nccessaryEnquiry vitiated lVhen officer not given opportunity to produce his defence 1vi1nesses.
The respondent was a Sales-tax Officer under the Uttar Pradesh Gov-
·crnmcnt.
Inquiries against him in respect of some charges of corrup1ion were first made by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales-tax
who
examined some witnesses.
The enquiry
was then passed on to the
·Commissioner who neither examined the witnesses against the respondent himself nor gave an opportunity to the respondent, despite
the
biter's repeated requests to produce his defence witnesses.
On orders
of dismissal being passed after the enquiry the respondent filed a writ
petition before the High Court which succeeded. The State appealed.
It was conceded on behalf of the State that the enquiry was under sub·
r. (I) or r. 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rule.. The distinction between sub-n. (I) and (3) was considered.
HELD : The third sub-rule deals wifo the unsuitability of an oflicer
for the service or with a charge for any specific fault. This fault means
a fault in the execution of his duties and not a misconduct such as taking
hribe etc. \vhich are charges of a more serious
nature affecting
the
character of the individual concerned. The
collocation of the words.
'any specific fault' or 'on account of unsuitability for service' give
the
clue to the distinction between the third sub-rule and the first sub-rule.
[852B-CJ
Sub-rule (I) of r. 55 is the general rule for enquiries when the
conduct of a person is inquited into for misconduct.
A person cannot
he charged with criminal conduct without affording him adequate opportunity to clear his character. If therefore
the
procedure under the
fir,t sub-rule had to be followed, adequate opportunity had to be given
to the respondent to lead evidence on his own behalf to clear himself.
No such opportunity having been given the enquiry could not be said
to comply with the elementary principles
of
natural justice
an<l the
High Court rightly held that the enquiry was
vitiated. (851 F-G; 852
E-F; 853 F-GJ

## Text

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
l'.·
SRI C. S. SHARMA
May 1, 1967
[M. HlOAYATULLAH AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.)
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, r . . 55, Suhu. (I) and (3)-Difference in nature of enquiries under the two subrules-Enquiry under sub-r. (I) relates to misconduct affecting character
·Of a Govenunent servant-Full opportunity to defend himself nccessaryEnquiry vitiated lVhen officer not given opportunity to produce his defence 1vi1nesses.
The respondent was a Sales-tax Officer under the Uttar Pradesh Gov-
·crnmcnt.
Inquiries against him in respect of some charges of corrup1ion were first made by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales-tax
who
examined some witnesses.
The enquiry
was then passed on to the
·Commissioner who neither examined the witnesses against the respondent himself nor gave an opportunity to the respondent, despite
the
biter's repeated requests to produce his defence witnesses.
On orders
of dismissal being passed after the enquiry the respondent filed a writ
petition before the High Court which succeeded. The State appealed.
It was conceded on behalf of the State that the enquiry was under sub·
r. (I) or r. 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rule.. The distinction between sub-n. (I) and (3) was considered.
HELD : The third sub-rule deals wifo the unsuitability of an oflicer
for the service or with a charge for any specific fault. This fault means
a fault in the execution of his duties and not a misconduct such as taking
hribe etc. \vhich are charges of a more serious
nature affecting
the
character of the individual concerned. The
collocation of the words.
'any specific fault' or 'on account of unsuitability for service' give
the
clue to the distinction between the third sub-rule and the first sub-rule.
[852B-CJ
Sub-rule (I) of r. 55 is the general rule for enquiries when the
conduct of a person is inquited into for misconduct.
A person cannot
he charged with criminal conduct without affording him adequate opportunity to clear his character. If therefore
the
procedure under the
fir,t sub-rule had to be followed, adequate opportunity had to be given
to the respondent to lead evidence on his own behalf to clear himself.
No such opportunity having been given the enquiry could not be said
to comply with the elementary principles
of
natural justice
an<l the
High Court rightly held that the enquiry was
vitiated. (851 F-G; 852
E-F; 853 F-GJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1260 of
1966.
Appeal from the _judgment and decree dated July 10, 1962
of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in Special Appeal
No. 551 of 1960.
C. B. Agnnvala and 0. P. Rana, for the appellants.
B. C. Misra, B. P. Iha and C. L. Lal, for the respondent.
A
B
c
D
E
G
II
B
c
p
E
F
G
H
u:P. STATE v. c. s. SHARMA (Hidayatu/lah, J.)
849
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hidayatullah, J. This is an appehl by the State of Uttar Pradesh
against the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad.
October 24, 1962, confirming in special appeal the deci;,ion of a
learned Single Judge dated July 10, 1962.
By that order the
High Court has set aside the order of dismissal made by the State
Government against the respondent C. S. Shanna on the ground
that he did not have a fair enquiry before the Commissioner of
Sales Tax when certain charges against him were inquired into.
The facts of the case are as follows.
The respondent C. S.
Sharma was appointed as a Sales Tax Officer in J anuaty 1949
and was transferred on April 1, 1950 to Hathras where he remained till the end of September 1952. An enquiry was made
with reference to certain allegations against hin1 durmg his period
of stay at Hathras.
On October 3, 1952, he .~as tran;,ferred t?
Lakhampur Kheri and was ordered not to v1s1t Hathras until
allowed by the authorities.
It appears that in November 1952,
an ex-parte inquiry was made by the Assistant Commissioner and
the proceedings were submitted with a. preliminary report to the
Commissioner.
On the basis of this report an order of suspension was passed against him on February 18, 1953 and he was
placed for inquiry before the Commissioner.
A set of charges
was delivered to him on April 15, 1953; then a supplementary
charge-sheet was issued on July 8, 1953.
Sharma asked for the
inspection of the record of the preliminary inquiry as also the
report, but he was told to submit his explanation to the charges
first before inspection could be allowed.
He submitted his explanation and in compliance with the directions conuined in the
charge-sheet issued to him, he submitted a list of three defence
witnesses whom he wished to examine in support C'f his ca~e. He
requested that the witnesses against him should be examined vivavoce in his presence before he was asked to meet that evidence
and also wished to be heard in person.
On October 31, 1953,
Shanna submitted the list of witnesses above-mentioned.
On tile
same day the Commissioner informed Shanna that he would
be permitted to produce the witnesses mentioned m his letter in
due course. In another communication he was told that another
date would be fixed for hearing the witnesses m his defence.
It
is not necessary to describe the charges here because ma11y of
them, though found against him by the Commissioner, were not
accepted by the State Government.
The order of dismissal was
based upon three allegations which are allegation No. 5 in char2c
No. I and allegations Nos. 1 and 3 in charges Nos. 2 and 3 respectively.
The Commissioner in his report found him guilty of
these charges and also of other allegations which the State Government did not accept.
We shall refer to these charges presently
after completing the narration of events which took place before
the Enquiring Officer.
850
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1967] 3 s.c.R.
After the inquiry opened, the Commissioner did no< examine
the witnesses afresh, but their previous statements. recorded at
the earlier enquiry, were tendered in evidence and Shanna was
asked to cross-examine them.
Sharma duly cro-;s-examined those
witnesses and then the question arose whether he would be allowed to lead his defence or not.
In the first application which he
had made giving the list of witnesses he had n.uncd three witnesses and had also added that they were to
be examined in
relation to a specific
charge about a car owned by him.
On
February 2, 1954, he made an application for 20 days' extension
of time for giving the list of witnesses he wished to examine in
his defence.
Third February had been fixed for summon111g of
the witnesses against him but no date till then was fixed for the
examination of his defence witnesses.
His application of February 2, 1954 was rejected by the Commissioner ou February 6,
1954, without fixing a date for the examination of the witnesses
or for giving him an opportunity to give evidence on his own
behalf.
Not knowing that he would not be given any further
opportunity, Sharma submitted a list of four witnesses on February 10, 1954, but stated that he could not give the addresses of
some of the witnesses because he did not know where thev were.
On February 24, 1954, he again stated that he wanted to examine
defence witnesses and to examine himself.
No order was, however, made on these applications. On April 8, 1954, the Commissioner made his report recommending the dismissal of Sharma
and the order of the State Government was made ~fter due opportunity to show cause why he should not be dismi>sed.
In reply
to the show cause notice Sharma complained that he had not been
allowed to lead evidence on his own behalf and
th~tt is one of
the contentions in the present case.
The charges against him which have been held prov~J against
him and to which we have referred were as folicws :
Charge No. 1. Al/egatio11 No. 5
"You accepted the accounts of Sarvsri Radhey
Shiam Brij Kishore without due verification."
Charge No. 2, A/legation No. 1
B
c
D
•
F
G
"Sarvsri Damodar Das Radhey Shianr had been
declared non-assessable for 1948-49 and for
three
quarters of 1949-50 by your predecessor.
The Judge
(Appeals) had also declared the dealer unassessable
H
in an appeal against your orders.
Still you assessed
the dealers for the first
three quarters to harass him.
Ultimately you declared the dealer unassessable."
A
8
•
c
I>
(~
F
G
H
U.P. STATE v. c. s. SHARMA (Hidayatullah, J.)
851
Charge No. 3, Allegation No. 3
"You accepted Rs. 500/- from Mithoo Lal of the
firm Noor Mohammed Mithoo Lal as bribe through
Chhotey Lal vakil."
l.n addition to these charges there was a charge against him that
he was in possession of a car which his means did· not allow
him to purchase and in respect of which he had made a reply
that he had received this car from his father-in-law.
This was
charge No. 4 and in relation to this charge apparently he had
cited the first list of three witnesses for the examination in his
defence.
This charge was not accepted by the State Govermnent
when the matter reached it.
After the order of dismissal was made, Sharma filed a writ
petition in the High Court of Allahabad asking that the order
made against him be quashed and his allegations were that the
enquiry against him was made by a Commissioner who was biased
against him; that the witnesses for the enquiry were not examined
viva voce
in his presence but were only tendered for
crossexamination and lastly that no adequate opponunity was !liven
to him for swnmoning his defence witnesses or to examine himself.
The High Court in the two orders which were made, reach·
ed the conclusion that the enquiry was defective, but different
reasons were given by the learned Single Judge and the Division
Bench.
We need not go into this matter ela1>9rately because in
our opinion the appeal here must be dismissed because we are
satisfied that no adequate opportunity was afforded to Sharma to
lead his defence which the principles of natural justice required.
The first question is whether this inquiry was made under
sub-rule ( 1) or (3) of r. 55 of the Civil Sarvices (Classification.
Control and Appeal) Rules.
It is an admitted fact that Sharma
was a temporary employee and therefore his case would fall to
be governed by sub-rule (3) of r. 55 if it could be said that the
enquiry which was being made was for a specific fault or on
account of his unsuitability for service. Sub-rule (I ) of r. 55
is a general rule for enquiries where the conduct of a person is
inquired into for misconduct but sub-rule (3) says that that subrule shall not app~y where it is l?roJ?Osed to terminate the employment of a probationer, or to dismiss, remove or reduce in rank
a temporary gov~rnn~~nt servant for any specific fault or on ac7ount of his unsuttab1hty for the service.
Sub-rule ( 3) says that
in such cases, the probationer or temporary government servant
~?ncemed shall ~e apprised of the grounds of such proposal,
'.'1v~n an ?PPortumty to show ~aus~ against the action to be takeR
agamst h1.m, and his explanation in this behalf, if any, shall be
d.uly considered. before orders are passed by the competent authonty.
I~ the third sub-rule applied, it is obviou~ that the kind
of enqmry made complied with its requirements.
The first sub-
852
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1967] 3 S.C.R.
rule, however, provides for a full-blooded enquiry which is the
counter-part of a regular trial : witnesses have to be examined in
support of the allegations, opportunity has to be given to the
delinquent officer to cross-examine them and fo lead evidence in
his defence.. In our judgrnent the present case was governed by
the first sub-rule and not the third sub-rule.
The third sub-rule
deals with the unsuitability of an officer for the service or with
a charge for any specific fault.
This fault means a fault in the
execution of his duties and not a misconduct such as taking bribe
etc. which are charges of a more serious nature affecting . the
character of the individual concerned.
The collocation of the
words "any specific fault"
or "on account of unsuitability for
service" give the clue of the distinction between the third sub-rule
and the first sub-rule. An officer who is, for example, habitually
lazy or makes mistakes frequently or is not polite or decorous may
be considered unsuitable for the service.
Another officer who
makes a grievous default in the execution of his work may, be
charged for the specific individual fault, that is .a dereliction or
defect in the execution of that duty.
Where there is an allegation
that an officer is guilty of a misconduct such as accepting bribe
or showing favours, the matter is not one of specific fault in the
execution of his work but something more.
That matter will
fall to be governed by the first sub-rule because you cannot charge
a man with criminal conduct without affording him adequate
opportunity to clear his character.
Mr, Aggarwal fairly pointed
out that the Government had appointed the enquiring officer to
take action under r. 55 ( 1) and it is thus quite clear that Government viewed the matter also in this light.
It, therefore, follows that if the procedure under the first subrule had to be followed, adequate opportunity had to be given to
Sharma to lead evidence on his own behalf to clear himself of
serious charges which were levelled against him and give evidence
on his own behalf.
It is obvious that he has not been able to lead
his defence or to give evidence on his own behalf.
The question
is whether he has to thank himself or the omission proceeded
because of some action on the part of the enquiring officer. Considering the whole matter we are satisfied that the enquiring officer
was to blame and we shall now show why we think so.
Throughout the enquiry, as late as February 24, 1954, Sharma
had again and again given indication that he would lead evidence in his defence.
At first he had given a list of three witnesse5
which he later amplified to four leaving out one from the original
list and adding two new names. He had also stated that he
wanted to examine himself in his defence. The learned Commissioner who was holding the enquiry on more than one occasion
stated that he would be afforded this opportunity and also that
a date would be ·fixed for the examination of the defence witA
B
•
c
D
E
F
G
H
B
c
D
.ll
p
G
H
U.P. STATE v. c. s. SHARMA (Hidayatul/a/z, J.)
853
nesses.
It is true that Shanna was playing for time and on the
2nd of February (before the date of hearing came) he put in an
application that he would like an adjournment of 20 days before
he submitted a final list of witnesses with their addresses.
This
application was rejected on February 6, but between February 6
and April 8, when the report was made, two long months passed
and it was possible for the Commissioner to have fixed a date, on
which, if he was so minded, Sharma could bring his witnesses in
support of his case or tender himself for examination.
No action
was taken between February 6, 1954 and April 8, 1954 to enable
Shanna to lead his defence, if any, in support of his part of the
case.
This omission in our judgment was sufficient to vitiate the
whole proceeding because no enquiry of this type in which there
are charges of a criminal nature, can be said to be properly conducted when the defence of the officer is either frustrated or ruled
out.
It was submitted by Mr. Agarwal .that the witnesses were being
summoned by him to clear himself of the charge of owning a car
without having the visible means to afford it and this charge was
not accepted by the State Government.
This is true enough, but
the State Government came on the scene much later.
In so far
as the enquiring officer was concerned, he had accepted the allegation against Sharma and even if the original list be considered.
Sharma was entitled to lead evidence with regard to the car itself.
It is possible that if a date had been fixed, he would, not only have
led evidence with regard to the car,
but would have brought
witnesses to clear himself of other charges, but no such opportunity was clearly afforded to him. Further before the case closed,
the Commissioner had before him a list of four witnesses and fair
play demanded that he should have fixed a date and left it to
Shanna to procure attendance of his witnesses on that date, but
if no date was fixed, Sharma was not expected to bring his
witnesses day after day in the hope that the Commissioner would
examine them any day. The enquiry cannot be said to comply
with the elementary principles of natural justice and therefore we
have no hesitation in accepting the decision of the High Court
that the enquiry was vitiated.
We ma}' i;mt omit to state that. there was an allegation against
the Comm1ss10ner that he was biased against Sharma.
It does
appear that the Commissioner, in one of his letters stated that he
had heard witnesses and satisfied himself that Sh~nna was defi.
nitely corrupt.
This statement of the Commissioner showed that
.he approached the case with a feeling that Shanna was guilty
although the State Government cannot he said to share this bias
of. th~ Commissi<!ner.
We would have said something more about
this, 1f the occasion. had demanded this. but as we are upholdini;
the order of the Htgh Court on the ground that no reasonable
854
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1967] 3 S.C.R.
·opportunity was afforded to Shanila to lead his evidence, it is not
A
necessary to say whether an officer in the position of the Commissioner, who on the basis of secret enquiries behind the back of
delinquent officer has reached the conclusion that there are good
grounds for holding that the officer is corrupt, should himself
conduct the enquiry. That matter may be left for consideration
B
in another case.
On the whole, therefore, we think that the ends of justice will
be served in maintaining the order made by the High Court. The
enquiry, if Government so decides, must proceed before an officer
who will examine the witnesses in support of the charge in the
manner laid down by this Court and afford Sharma an opportunity
of leading his defence, if any,
c
The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.
G.C.
Appeal dismissl'd.
I