# GENERAL MANAGER, EASTERN RAILWAY AND ANOTHER v. JA WALA PROSAD SINGH November 20, 11169 - **Citation:** [1970] 3 S.C.R. 271 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1970 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1186 (N ! of 1967 - **Bench:** S. M. Sikri, G. K. Mitter - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/general-manager-eastern-railway-and-another-v-ja-wala-prosad-singh-november-20-4910 - **Pages:** 7 ## Headnote Natural Justice-lnquir,v Con1111illee's duty to s11hn1it report to puniJhing authorily-l.~hange i11 personnel of Inquiry Co1nn1i11ee durinR inquiry No de novo inquiry but proceedinKJ continued-Procedure if ''iolr.tes natural fustiCe. The Jespondent, a railway servant. was charged with misRappropriation. An Inquiry Committee of three officers of the Railway was constituted to inquire into the charges. After the proceedings had gone on for some time and some witne-sscs were examined. one of the members of the inquiry committee was transferred. There was no de novo inquiry and the proceedings continued with the successor in office. The Inquiry Con1mittee found the respondent guilty of the charges and submitted its report under the Discipline and Appeal Rules of the Indian Railway Establishment Code. The Disciplina{y Authority considered the record of inquiry, issued the second show cause notice and thereafter disn1issed the responR dent from service. The respondent's appeal to the General t¥1anager having proved unsuccessful, he challenged the order in a writ petition. The High Court quashed the order of dismissal on the ground that there \Vas a violation of the principles of natural justice. because of the change in the pe'rsonnel of the Inquiry Committee. In appeal to this Court, HELD : No known principle, of naturul justice is violatCd when one nlember of the Inquiry Committee is substituted by another. because. the change in the personnel even though it ""·as after the proceedings h;1d begun and some evidence was recorded, could not make any difference to the railway servant. The members of the Committee cannot recdrd their findings separately, but must arrive at their conclusion jointly and it i:; the racord consisting of the documents and the oral evidence which forms the basis of the report of the Inquiry Committee. Therefore, any in1pression created by the demeariou'r of a particular witness on the mind of any member could not affect the conclusion. [275 D-F: 276 A-BJ Further, under the rules, the duty of the Committee en down that an inquiry has to be made into the charges which are not admitted q,fter the filing of the written statement. At the inquiry. a definite charge in writing must be framed and explained to the railway servant in respect of each offence which had not been admitted by him and the evidence in respect of it along with any evidence which he may adduce in defence must be recorded in his presence. The accused railway servant may present his case with the assistance of another railway servant. Sub-r. (3) of the rule provides : "The Inquiring Authority shall, in the course of the inquiry, consider such documentary evidence and take such oral evidence including cross-examination of the railway servant and witnesses, as may be relevant or material in regard to the charges. The railway servant shall have the opportunity of adducing relevant evidence on which he relies, the evidence of witnesses shall be taken in his presence, he or the person assisting him · shall be given,the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses and no materials shall be relied on against him without his being given an opportunity of explaining them." Under sub-r. ( 4) : "At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiring Authority shall prepare a report of the inquiry, recording its findings on each of the charges, together with the reasons therefor . . . . . . " Under sub-r. ( 5) the record of the inquiry shall include the charges framed against the railway servant and the statement of allegations furnished to him under Rule 1709, his written statement • of defence. if any, the oral evidence taken in. the course of the inquiry. the documentary evidence considered in the course of inquiry, the orders, if any, made by the Disciplinary Authority in regard to the inquiry and a report setting out the findings on each charge and the reasons therefor. · Under rule 1713 the DisciP.linary Authority, if it is not the Inquiring Authority, shall consider the record of the inquiry and record its findings on each charge. A B c D E F G H A G. M. EASTERN RLY, v. J. P. SINGH (Mitter,!.) 275 It is after the observance of all the above formalities that penalty may be imposed under r. 1704 or r. 1715. In our opinion, the above procedure does not leave any scope for the guidance of a member of an Inquiry Committee consisting of more than one person by the impression formed by him about B the tmthfu!'ness or otherwise of a particular witness examined during the inquiry. From the stage antecedent to the framing of the charges everything is recorded in writing : the allegations on which the charges are based are made known to the railway servant and he is called upon to file his written statement after looking into all the relevant records. The oral evidence of all the c witnesses tendered during the enquiry is recorded in writing. Where ~s here the oral evidence is recorded in the presence of three persons constituting the Inquiry Committee, any impression created by the demeanour of a particular witness on the mind of any one member cannot affect the conclusion afterwards arrived at jointly by them. It cannot be suggested that all the 0 three persons would record their impressions separately. about .the demeanour of a witness and it is quite possible that a particular witness mlty appear to one.member of the committee to be untruthful without his being considered so by the others. The members of the Inquiry Committee cannot record their findings separately but it is their duty to record findings on each of the charges together with the reasons therefor. It is to be noted that E the duty of the Inquiry Committee ends with the making of the report. The Disciplinary Authority has to consider the record of the inquiry and arrive at its own conclusion on each charge. Whatever may be the impression created by a particular witness on the mind of one member of the committee, the same is never translated into writing and the Disciplinary Committee merely F • goes by the written record after giving a personal hearing to the railway servant if he asks for it. Even if the Inquiry Committee makes a report absolving the railway servant of the charges against. him, the Disciplinary Authority may, on considering the entire ·record come to a different conclusion and impose a penalty. This is amply borne out by a judgment of this Court in Union of India G v. H. C. Goel(') where it was said that neither the findings nor the recommendations of the Inquiry Committee are binding on the Government. H . In such a state of affairs a change in the personnel of the Inquiry Committee after the proceedings are begun and some evidence recorded cannot make any difference to the case of the railway servant. The record will speak for itself and it is the record consisting of the document~ and the oral evidence as re- (1) [19'4]4 S.C.R. 718; A.J.R. 1964 S.C. 364. 276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1970] 3 S.C.R. corded which must form the basis of the report of the Inquiry Committee. The committee is not the punishing authority and the personal impression of a member of the committee cannot possibly affect the decision of the Disciplinary· Authority. In a state of affairs like this we cannot see any reason for holding that any known principles of natural justice is violated when .one member of the committee is substituted by another. The observations of this Court in Gul/apalli Nageswara Rao's case(') have no· bearing on the facts of the present case. There it was held that if a personal hearing is given by the Secretary of a Department and the Minister of the State has to decide on the notes put up by the Secretary, the procedure defeats the object of personal hearing. The observations at p. 357 that "Personal hearing enables the authority concerned to watch the demeanour of the witnesses and clear-up his doubts during the course of the arguments, and the party appearing to persuade the authority by reasoned argument to accept his point of view. If one person hears and another decides then personal h~aring becomes an empty formality." can have po application to the facts of the case before us. The members of the Inquiry Committee who heard the arguments had the entire record before them and they had to go by the record. · A B c E Jn proceedings before ordinary trial courts of the land, both civil and criminal, it is not uncommon to find oral · evidence recorded before more than one presiding Judge or Magistrate. Common convenience requires it and statutes provide for it. It cannot be suggested that the legislatures have enacted laws in disregard of an elementary principle of natural justice. Besides • F not unoften witnesses have to be examined on commission. Whenever a witness is so examined, the Judge does not have the benefit of watching his demeanour. The Criminal Procedure Code provides for more than one Magistrate recording the evidence '1f witnesses. Section 363 Cr. P.C. enjoins upon a Sessions. Judge or a Magistrate to record such remarks (if any) as he thinks c' material respecting the demeanour of a witness whilst under examination. Order XVIII r. 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers a Judge to treat the evidence recorded by his predecessor in office as if it had been taken down by him or under his direction under the said rule and he may proceed with the suit from the stage at which his predecessor left it, whenever his predecessorin-office is prevented from concluding the trial of a suit by reason H , lf death or transfer or some other cause. Instances ate not· rare (I) [1959! Supp. I S.C.R. 319. A B c D (). M. EASTERN RLY. v. J. P. SINGH (Mitter, J.) 277 when such powers have to be used either by a Judge hearinj! a civil suit or a Magistrate or a Sessions Judge hearing a crimmal matter. In the vast majority of cases both civil and criminal, a J udg,e does not come to any conclusion merely on the impression created by a witness while he is in the witness box. In all matters which go up in appeal, the appellate conrt does not have any opportunity of watching the demeanour of the witness : it has to go by the record of the case. Of course if any comment is made by the trial Judge about the demeanour of a witness, the appellate court takes note of it. But it never guides itself entirely by such comments. The entire evidence has to be looked into and assessed as a whole. Where as here the punishing authority does not hear the evidence but goes by the record of the case the demeanour of a particular witness when giving evidence can have but little meaning and cannot influence the mind of the Disciplinary Authority in awarding punishment. We therefore hold that the High Court was not right in quashing the order of dismissal on the ground that the report of the Inquiry Committee was vitiated by the violation of any principle of natural justice as stated in the judgment. The appeal is therefore allowed and the order of the High Court set aside. There will however be no order as to costs. V.P.S. Appeal allowed. L7 Sup Cl (NP)70-3