# SHADI LAL GUPTA v. STATE OF PUNJAB March 7, l 973

- **Citation:** [1973] 3 S.C.R. 637
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1973
- **Bench:** A. Alagiriswami, I. D. Dua, C. A. VAIDIALHiGAM JJ
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/shadi-lal-gupta-v-state-of-punjab-march-7-l-973-5912
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1952-Rule 8Appellant charge sheeted for disobedience to superiors and ft~r negligence
of duty-Personal hearing was given' to him but no copy of the enquiry
officer's report given 1-0 appellant-whether the Rule was ritiated and the
principle of natural justice violated.
Appellant was a Clerk in the Treasury at Ludhiana. He filod a suit for
three different reliefs to which only one that now survives is regarding the
order withholding his increment for one year with cumulati\·e effect. On
I(}ll-61 he was charged sheeted on the ground that he was disobedient
to his superior and negligent in the discharge of his duties and ·J. few specific
instances of his carelessness and negligence were mentioned in the charge·
sheet.
Thereafter the appe11ant submitted. his explanation and a personal
hearing was also given to him by the authorities.
The appellant com
4
plained that he was not given any opportunity to adduce any evidence in
defence and no prosecution witnesses were examined in his presence. The
contentions of the appel~ant are that (i) by the failure to give him a copy
of the report df the Treasury Officer who made a local inquiry, and taking
it into consideration behind his back, he has been prejudiced and
(ii)
Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1952
has been contravened.
Rule 8 provides, inter alia, that no order for censurei \\"ithholding of
increments, recovery from pay of any pecuniary Joss to the Govt., shall
be passed imposing a penalty on a Govt. Servant, unless he has been given
an adequate opportunity of making any representation that he may desire
to make, and such representation has been taken
into consideratign.
Dismissing the· appeal.
HELD : (i) Under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment
and Appeal) Rules 1952, the only requrement is that the officer
concerned should be given an adequate opportunity of making any representation th.at he may desire to make.
There is no provision for examination of witnesses, cross examination of witnesses and furnishing a copy
of the report of the enquiry officer etc.
He need not be told about the
punishment which is sought to be imposed on him, either at the time the
chargesheet was .served on him or at any other stage. In the present case,
these \Vas, no failure to 'foilow the relevant rules, which only require that
the officer concerned should have an opportunity of making a. repreSentation in respect of the char~es made against him and the officer. coricerned
had an opportunity to 1nake a representation and his representation was
considered by tlie authorities in taking Jisc~plinary action against him.
(ii) The rules of natural justice have also not been Yiolated in
the
present case.
The requirements of the rules of natural justice arc :-(a)
the person accμsed should know the nature of the accusation made; (b)
that he should be given an opportu"ity to state his case; and (iii) that
the tribunal should act in good faith Byrne & another v. Kinematograp/1
Rentery Society Ltd .. [1958) A.E.R. 579. referred to.
[646 A·Bl
638
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1973) 3 S.C.R.
(iii) In any proceedings even by a domestic tribunal. the rules
of
natural justice would have to be observed; but the principles to be applied would depend upon the circuinstances of each case.
(iv) };-, the present case, the principle of natural justice had not been
violated because the appellant \Vas not given an opportunity to make a
representation in respect of the Treasury Officer's
report.
When the
authorities \\'anted a local enquiry to be made, it \\.-as with a view to check
up with records the representation made by the appellant. The report
does not ac!J one single instance more than what is already found in the
allegations.
If the report had contained anv material extraneous to the
charges aga;:ist the appellant, then· only he· could be said to have been
prejudil.-ed.
The report merely sets up the evidence in support of the
a

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SHADI LAL GUPTA
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB
March 7, l 973
637
[A. ALAGIRISWAMI, I. D. DUA AND C. A.
VAIDIALHiGAM JJ.J
Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1952-Rule 8Appellant charge sheeted for disobedience to superiors and ft~r negligence
of duty-Personal hearing was given' to him but no copy of the enquiry
officer's report given 1-0 appellant-whether the Rule was ritiated and the
principle of natural justice violated.
Appellant was a Clerk in the Treasury at Ludhiana. He filod a suit for
three different reliefs to which only one that now survives is regarding the
order withholding his increment for one year with cumulati\·e effect. On
I(}ll-61 he was charged sheeted on the ground that he was disobedient
to his superior and negligent in the discharge of his duties and ·J. few specific
instances of his carelessness and negligence were mentioned in the charge·
sheet.
Thereafter the appe11ant submitted. his explanation and a personal
hearing was also given to him by the authorities.
The appellant com
4
plained that he was not given any opportunity to adduce any evidence in
defence and no prosecution witnesses were examined in his presence. The
contentions of the appel~ant are that (i) by the failure to give him a copy
of the report df the Treasury Officer who made a local inquiry, and taking
it into consideration behind his back, he has been prejudiced and
(ii)
Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1952
has been contravened.
Rule 8 provides, inter alia, that no order for censurei \\"ithholding of
increments, recovery from pay of any pecuniary Joss to the Govt., shall
be passed imposing a penalty on a Govt. Servant, unless he has been given
an adequate opportunity of making any representation that he may desire
to make, and such representation has been taken
into consideratign.
Dismissing the· appeal.
HELD : (i) Under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment
and Appeal) Rules 1952, the only requrement is that the officer
concerned should be given an adequate opportunity of making any representation th.at he may desire to make.
There is no provision for examination of witnesses, cross examination of witnesses and furnishing a copy
of the report of the enquiry officer etc.
He need not be told about the
punishment which is sought to be imposed on him, either at the time the
chargesheet was .served on him or at any other stage. In the present case,
these \Vas, no failure to 'foilow the relevant rules, which only require that
the officer concerned should have an opportunity of making a. repreSentation in respect of the char~es made against him and the officer. coricerned
had an opportunity to 1nake a representation and his representation was
considered by tlie authorities in taking Jisc~plinary action against him.
(ii) The rules of natural justice have also not been Yiolated in
the
present case.
The requirements of the rules of natural justice arc :-(a)
the person accμsed should know the nature of the accusation made; (b)
that he should be given an opportu"ity to state his case; and (iii) that
the tribunal should act in good faith Byrne & another v. Kinematograp/1
Rentery Society Ltd .. [1958) A.E.R. 579. referred to.
[646 A·Bl
638
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1973) 3 S.C.R.
(iii) In any proceedings even by a domestic tribunal. the rules
of
natural justice would have to be observed; but the principles to be applied would depend upon the circuinstances of each case.
(iv) };-, the present case, the principle of natural justice had not been
violated because the appellant \Vas not given an opportunity to make a
representation in respect of the Treasury Officer's
report.
When the
authorities \\'anted a local enquiry to be made, it \\.-as with a view to check
up with records the representation made by the appellant. The report
does not ac!J one single instance more than what is already found in the
allegations.
If the report had contained anv material extraneous to the
charges aga;:ist the appellant, then· only he· could be said to have been
prejudil.-ed.
The report merely sets up the evidence in support of the
allegations
There'fore, the appellant has not been
prejudiced by the
Tr~asury Officer's report being taken into consideration before the order
of punishn1ent was passed against the petitoner.
[6..t6 H: 647 A-BJ
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1527 of
1971.
Appeal by special leave frctm the judgment and order dated
October 12. 1970 ol' the Punjab and Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh in Regular S.A. No. 1370 of 1969.
G. L. Sanghi, for the appellant.
V. C. Mahajan and R. N. Sachthey, for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered byALAGIRJSWAMI. J.-This appeal is by way of special leave
against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
dismissing the Second Appeal filed by the appellant.
He was a
clerk in the Treasury at Ludhiana. He filed the suit out of which
this appeal arises for three different reliefs out of which the only
one that now survives is regarding the order withholding his increment for one year with cumulative effect.
The sole point raised on behalf. of the appellant before the
High Court was overruled by it on the basis of the full bench
decision of the High Cour>t in Malvinderjit Singh v. The State of
Punjab & Ors.(') which overruled the decision in Kal;van Singh
v. The State of Punjab(').
This is perhaps the first case that comes to this Court in the
matter of a minor punishment.
The appellant relied upon the
decision of this Court in B. D. Gupta v. State of Haryana('), the
facts c[ which art ra'lher complicated, and are unnecessary for
the purpose of this case. One of the points that arose in that case
was regarding the mingr punishment of censure, though it was an
incidental one in an appeal which involved a much more important
question. Itwas held that the show cause notice in that case did
(I) (1970) 2 I.LR. (Punjab) 580.
(3) A.LR. 1972 (S.C.) 2472.
(2) (1967) 21.L.R. (Punjab) 471.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
>
~ (
B
•
•
c
·~
D
..
E
f
•
G
•
H
SHAD! LAL v. PUNJAB (Alagiriswami, J.)
639not give the ·appellant (the aggrieved Government servant)
any·
real opportunity to defend himself. That is not the case here.
.
.
-
The charge-sheet served on the appellant on 10-11-61 was. to
the follow.ing effect : .
"(i) That you have been careless and negligent in
the performance of your duties at Sub-Treasury, Sirhind,
· as per concrete instances mentioned in the enclosed state-
. ment bf allegations.
·
· (ii) That-you have been disobedient to the Assistant
Treasury Officer, Sirhind."
and an elaborate statement of allegations was enclosed alongwith;
the charge-sheet, which is set out below :
STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS
"While Shri Shadi, Lal Gupta, Clerk, Sangrur Treasury, was working ·as Routine Clerk, Sifhind Sub-Trca- ·
sury, he had been disobedient to the Assistant Treasury
Officer, Sirhirid and negligent in the ·discharge of his
duties, and a few instances of his carelessness, negligence
and disobedience are given below :-
1. Shri Shadi Lal Gupta was allotted the work of
passing Deposit Repayment Orders issued by the
Courts and it was found vide some instances quoted
below that he calculated wrong
balances in the·
Deposit Receipt Registers which were
likely to
. cause over-payment in certain cases ;md refusal
to make payment in other cases at some later stage.
(a) .While passing DRO No. 17, .dated 15th
November, 1960 on 18-11-1960 the balancewas calculated by him as Rs. 327 .60 in-
. stead of Rs. 317.60 N.P. ·
(b) While passing DRO 15 dated 10-11-1960
on 25th November, 1960, the balance was
calculated by'him as Rs. 56.44 N.P. instead
of Rs. 56.33 N.P.
(c)
(d)
In the said DRO 15 dated 10-11-1960 passed on 25-11-1960 the amount to be paid
was entered by him as Rs. 7 4 /- only instead
of Rs. 74.11 N.P.
While passing payment of Rs. 131.06 N.P.
in respect of DRO 17 dated 15-11-1960 on
18-11-1960 the tialance
in the
deposit
receipt Register was calculated by him as
· Rs. 595.23 N.P. instead of Rs. 495.23 N.P'.
'640
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973) 3 S.C.R.
(e) In passing payment of Rs. 28.71 N.P. relating to DRO 23
dated
5-12-1960
on
7-12-1960 the balance was worked out by
him
as
Rs. '261.71
N.P. instead of
Rs. 281.71 N.P.
(f) The passing payment of.Rs. 1562.70 N.P.
in respect of DRO 124 dated
8-11-1960
repaid on 9-11-1960 the actual payment
was shown as Rs. 1600/- in .the deposit
receipt register.
2. He passed cheque No. 335553 dated 13-11-1960
on 15-11-1960 withou1 verifying the particulars
of the cheque· in question as the cross eμtry of the
cheque was wrong and he did not point it out,
Similarly cheque No. 395202, dated 21-11-1960
for Rs. 126/- was passed on 24-11-1960 by him
without verifying the identifier of the payee, as
neither he asked/ him to produce his half of the
P.P.O. quoted by him in his identification nor did
he confirm the fact from the Sub-Treasury record.
3. I.nward letter No. 419 and 430 were received from
the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala on 6-12-1960
which remained undisposed of b\Y him till 3-1-1961.
Letter No. 695, dated 14-11-1960 regarding verification of credits received from the N.T.
(Recovery) was not disposed of by him till 3-1-1961.
He also did not diarise them.
4. On 30-12-1960, the Assistant Treasury Officer
asked him verbally to ·attend office on 31-12-1960
to clear arrears on his seat. He refused to do so.
Thereon he gave him written orders to that effect
and he. refused to note them. Again he ~sked him
to record his refusal in black and white but he
declined even to do so.
5. He refused to write-up the Assistant Treasury
Officer's set of Double Lock registers on his ordering him to do so as is evidenced by the fact that
when he asked him even in writing on 13-1-1961,
after obtaining Treasury Officer Patiala's orders 10
write up his set of double lock registers, he stated
in his application dated 16-1-1961 that he had no
objection to carry out the work under protest for
some days upto the decision of the Treasury
Officer, Patiala.
A
B
c
D
II
F
G
H
A
B
c
B
E
F
G
H
SHAD! LAL v. PUNJAB (Alagiriswami, J.)
641
The carelessness, negligence and disobedience of the
official has rendered him liable to disciplinary action."
Thereafter the appellant seems to have submitted his explanation
and the then Deputy Secretary, Shri Banwari Lal seems also to
have given him a personal hearing.
The appellant complained
that he was not given any opportunity to adduce any evidence in
defence and no prosecution witnesses were examined in his presence.
Shri Banwari Lal seems to have fch it necessary to have
a local enquiry and, therefore, asked the Treasury Officer to send
a report after a local enquiry.
One of the complaints of the
appellant was that these proceedings were started because one
Yash Pa} Kaura, the Treasury Officer was inimically disposed towardf. him.
But we consider that point irrelevant l:lecause how
the proceedings came to be initiated would not in any way affected
the validity or otherwise of the disciplinary
proceedings.
The
Treasury Officer who sell'! up the report, after the local enquiry,
was another person.
Two contentions were urged on behalf of the appellant :
(I) that by the failure to give him copy of the report
of the Treasury Officer and taking it into consideration behind his back, he has been prejudiced;
and
( 2) Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment
and Appeal) Rules 1952 has been contravened,
l'nder Rule 4 of the above rules the following penalties may,.
for good and sufficient reason be imposed :
\i) Censure;
(ii) Withholding of increments or promotion, including s1opp3ge at an efficiency bar, if any;
(iii)
(iv)
Reduction to a lower post or time-scale, or to a
lower stage in a time scale;
Recovery from pay of the whole or part ci any
pecuniary loss caused to Government by neghgence of breach or order;
( v) ~uspension;
(vi) Removal from the Civil Service of the Government which does not disqualify from future
employment.
(vii) Dismissals from the Civil Service of the Government which ordinarily disqualifies from future
employment;
M2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1973] 3 S.C.R.
Rule 8 is to the following effect :
"8. Without prejudice to the provisions of Rule 7.
no order under clauses (i), (ii), or (iv) of Rule 4 shall
be passed imposing a penalty on a Government servant,
.unless he has been given an adequate opportunity or
)naking any representation that he may desire to make,
and such representation has been taken into consideration."
There are two provisos to the rule which it is unnecessary to
set out for •the purposes of this case.
Under this rule the only
requirement is that the officer concerned should be give_n an adequate opportunity of making any representation that he may
desire to make. There is no provision for examination of witnesses,
cross examination of witnesses and furnishing a copy of the report,
all requirements which we find in Rule 7. Therefore, in this case
if the punishment had been imposed after the charge-sheet had
been served on the appellant and he had made his representation
and also been personally heard by Banwari Lal, it would have
been perfectly legal.
Rule 8 does not require anything more than
that the allegations on the basis of which the officer concerned
1s charged should be made known to him and he should be given
an opportunity to make any representation with regard to them.
He need not be told the punishment which is sought to be imposed
on him, either at the time tile chargesheet is served on him or any
other stage. There is no question of his being given an opportunity
a second time after the enquiry is. completed in respect of the
punishm~nt sought to be imposed on him unlike in a case covered
by Rule 7.
Rule 7 of these Rules deals with cases whi!re the major punishment of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank are proposed to
be imposed and sub-rule 6 of that rule specifically provides that
fa such a case after the pμnishing authority has arrived at a provisional conclusion in regard to the penalty to 1?e imposed, the
accused officer shall be supplied with a copy of the report of the
enquiry1ng authority and be c.illed upon to show cause against
the particular penalty proposed to be infiicted on him. The words
"without prejudice to the provisions of rule 7" occurring at the
beginning of. Rule 8 are sought to be taken advantage of to contend
that even in the case of minor punishments referred to in that rule,
of censure, withholding of increments and recovery from pay, an
opportunity should be given to show cause against the punishment
proposed to be imposed. Those words do not fit in in the context
and cannot mean that in a case of minor punishpient not only the
-provisions of rule 8 but also the provisions of rule 7 should be
followed. · The rules must be interpreted in their proper setting
and if so interpreted, those words would not bear the interpretation
A
B
c
D
E
F
H
A
c
0
E
F
G
R
SHAD! LAL v. PUNJAB (Alagiriswami, J.)
643
sought to be placed on them. The provisions oJ' rule 7 are necessitated by the provisions of Article 3 U ( 2) of the Constitution.
As far as other punishments are concerned, the only right which
a Government servant is entitled to is that the action proposed
should be in accordance with the rules made under the proviso
to Article 309.
That rule, rule 8 does not contemplate anything
more than an adequate opportunity of making a representation.
We are, therefore, unable to accept this contention.
We shall now consider some of the decisions cited befo_re us.
It is first necessary to refer to the decision in Ka/Jan Singh v. The
State of Punjab (supra) which has been overruled by the Full
Bench in Malvinderjit Singh v. The State of Punjab
&
Anr.
(supra). The High Court was not quite right in dismissing the
appellant's
appeal on the basis of Malvinderjit
Singh's case.
Kalyan Singh's case was overruled only as regards the question
whether a copy of the report of the Vigilance Department on the
basis of which proceedings were initiated, should be given to the
concerned officer or not. We are not cqncerned with that question
in this case. But the Full Bench also dealt with the question of
the procedure to be adopted in the case of imposition of minor
punishments and it held :
"(a) that for the minor punishment to _public servants for their J)lisconduct the autltorities have designedly
provided for a simple and summary prqcec!t1re of representations only, untrammalled by any furnishing of
copies of documents or material on which the allegations
are based or the right of cross-examination or the right
of leading defence evidence which are all provided in
the case of enquiries qua major punishments. The furnishing of doc.uments as provided for in rules 7 ancl 9
of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal)
Rul\:S, 1952, stands excluded under rule 8.
Basically
the right to secure copies of documellts or other specific
material is a r.roce<jural right which accrues if it is so
granted in express terms by a'\statute. Nobody can be
said to have any inherent right~ secure copies or to have
any access to confidential State records.
Such a right
can only be a creature of a statute. On an overall view
of the specific language of rule 8 of the Rules, its setting
in the relevant rules and the scope and ambit thereof,
all collectively tend to negative .any such procedural
right.
(b!) That the words 'adequate opportunity' in the
context of rule 8 of the Rules may mean_no more than
an adequacy of time to make a representation which
alone is guaranteed by rule 8. It is possible to place
644
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1973] 3 S.C.R.
such a limited meaning upon these words, but even if a
more liberal construction is placed, these words cannot
be elongated enough to cn:>ate a specific procedural
right to secure copies and materials. Moreover, the adequacy of opportunity to make repr~sentation under rule
8 cannot possibly imply a larger right than what has
been judicially interpreted 10 be the basic requirements
of a reasonable opportunity of being heard or to show
cause again9t specific allegations.
( c J That under rule 8 of the Rules, unlike rule 7,
the employee has only one opportunity of making a representation. No enquiry need be conducted as under
rule 7 and no evidence need be recorded in the presence
of the employee. .It is open to the punishing authority
to collect any material either itself or through any specialised a2ency like the Vigilance Department to acquaint
itself with the real facts in order to take a
decision
whether any action is to b~ taken against 'the employe.e,
and, if so, what action is to be taken. But if such an
enquiry is made and material is collected on the basis
of which a prejudicial view is taken against the employee
·and he is chargesheeted under rule 8 with a view to impose one of the three minor punishments, then the employee is entitled to an adequate opportunity to make a
representation to show that ( 1) he is
not guilty and
(2) that "he proposed punishment should not be imposed
on him, being excessive. It would be impossible for an
employee to make such a representation unless it is made
known to him the material on the basis of which it has
been decided that he is gnilty and that the particular
punishment be imposed on him ...... Without being
supplied with such a material he cannot make an effective
and real representation.
The only case in which the
punishing authority would be justified in withholding
such a material, would be where under the second proviso to rule 8. sufficient reasons are recorded in writin~
to the effect that it is not practicable to observe the requirements of the rule and .that this can be done without
injustice to the officer concerned.
( d) Thait the words 'adequate opportunity in the
context of rule 8 of the Rules connote "reasonably suffi·
cient opportunity" in every respect, to make a representation against the action sought to be taken against the
employee. Before an employee can be said to have had
this 'adequate opportunity', the employee has to be told
the charges of misconduct ·and then he must have an
opportunity tci be heard in answer to those charges."
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SHAD! LAL v. PUNJAB (Alagiriswami; J.)
tiH
A
The ~ase in R. D. Raw a v. State ( 1) was also noticed in the above
Full Bench decision. In that case two charges were made against
Rawal and one of the c)).arges was held not established. Another
charge was on the basis that certain action takcm by him was
ma/afide.
The ma/afides were held not estaW.ished but the impugned order withholding one· increment was passed on the grow1d
B that some lapses on his part had resulted in excess payment t6 a
contractor. This order was set aside by the High Court. That
decision could be explaine<.l on the basis that the officer concerned
did not have an opportunity ol showing that there was no lapse
on his part.
We may also refer to the decision in Roop Lal v. State of
C Punjab(') of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
D
E
F
G
H
The ratio of decision in that case is stated as follows :
"In the present case if the procedure under rule 7 of
the Rules had been. followed and instead of a ma.ior
punishment a minor punishment had been inflicted, no
fault could be found therewith but if no enquiry was held
as envisaged under rule 7 ibid and the minor punishment
was proposed to be inflicted under rule 8 thereof, then
the procedure prescribed under rule 8 had to be fo.llowed."
We lhus come to the conchl$ion that there was no failure in
this case to follow the relevant rules, which, as we have already
indicated, only require that the officer concerned should have an
opportunity of making a representation in resp~t of the charges
made against him. This leaves the question of whe1."'<ler any prin-
.ciples of natural justice have bjeen violated in this case.
The r)lles of natural justice would undoubtedly have to be
observed in any proceedings even by a domestic tribunal. But
the principles of mrtural justice to be applied would depend upon
the circumstances of each case. In Suresh v. Kera/a U11ivmll)'( 8)
this Court pointed out that the question whether the requirements
of natural justice have been met by the procedure adopted must
depend to a great exten~ on the facts and circumstances of the case
in point, the constitution of the Tribunal and the rules under which
it functions. After referring to the decisions in Russel v.Duke of
Norfolk & Ors.,(') Local Government Board v. Alridge(1) and
De Verteuil v. Knaggs &·Anr.(•) this Court also referred to the
observations of Lord Harman, J. in Byme & Anr. v. Kinematograph Renters Satiety Ltd.(') to the following effect :
(I) 1967 C.L.J. 439.
(3) [1969] l S.C.R. 3i7.
(5) [19151A.C.120.
(7) [1958] All B.R .. 579 ..
9~L761Sup.C.IJ:73
(2) 1971 (I) S.L.R. 41.
(4) 19491 All E.R. 108 at Ill.
(61 [1918] A.C. 557.
646
SUPREME COURT RBPOR'l'.S
[1973) 3 S,C,ll.
"What, then, are the r~uirements of natural justice
in a case of this kind 7 FIISt, I think that the person
accused should know the nature of the accusation made;
secondly that he should be given an opportunity to s~
his case; and thirdly, of course, that the tn'bunal.should
act in good faith. I do not think that there really is anything more."
and went on to lay down the same principle in its own words :
"Suffice it to say that in the case l:lefore us there was
a fair inquiry against the appeUant; the officer appointed
to inquire was an impartial person; he cannot be said to
have been biassed against the
appellant; the charge
against the appellant was made known to him before the
commencemQ!lt of the inquiry; the wi'lnesses who gave
evidence against him were examined in his presence and
he was allowed to cross-examine them and lastly he was
given every opportunity to present his case before the Inquiry Officer. Hence we see no merit in the conte\lltion
that there was any breach of the principles of natural
justice. It is true that the Vice-Chancellor did not make
availaQle to the appellant a c91iy of the ~eport submitted
by the Inquiry Officer. Admittedly the appellant did
not ask for a copy of the report. There is no rule requiring the Vice-Chancellor to provide the appellant with a
copy o( the report of the Inquiry Officer before he was
called upon to make his representation against the provisional decision taken by him. If the appellant felt any
difficulty in making his representation without looking
into the report of the Inquiry Officer, he could have very
well asked for a copy of that report. His present grieva.nce appears to be an after thought and we !!CC no subs·
tance in it."
·
As we have indicated earlier, if Shri Banwari Lal had impi>sed
the punishment after he had given a hearing to the appellant, the
order would have been perfectly legal and it could not have been
. said that any principle of natural justice had been violated. The
criteria indica1ed above would have been satisfied. But what is
urged before us in this case is that as the report of the Treasury
Officer, which we have already referred to earlier, was taken into
consideration without showing it to the appellant he has been
seriously prejudiced and the principles of natural justice have been
violated in so far ·as he has not had an opportunity of making his
representation in respect of 1hat report. We find no substance in
this ci>ntention. When Shri Banwari Lal wanted a local enquiry
to be made he apparently wanted the representations made by the
anpellant to be checked up wi1h the records and that is what has
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
SHAD! LAL v. PUNJAB (Alagiriswami, /.)
647
been done as is clear from a comparison of the allegations on the
basis oi which the chargesheet was served on the petitioner, and
the report of the Treasury Officer. We have carefully gone
through it and it does not add one single instance more than what
is already found in the allegations. It merely sets out the evidence
in support of these allegations. We are, therefore, of the opinion
that the appellant has not been in any w a.y prejudiced by the Treasury Officer's report being taken into consideration before the
order of punishment was passed against the petitioner. If before
the Treasury Officer had sent his report he had ·associated the
appellant in the enquiry he held it would not have been necessary
to give him a copy of the report he sent. I! the report had contained any material extraneous to the charges against the appellant, or any thing in addition to what is found in the original allegations against him then only he could be said to have been prejudiced. In the decision of the Judicial Committee in B. Surinder
Singh Kanda v. Government of the Federation of Malaya(')
noticed in Suresh v. Kera/a University (Supra) a report ma.de by
the Board, which held the preliminary inquiry, which was highly
prejudicial to Kanda had been placed in the hands of the officer
who held the formal enquiry was not made available to Kanda.
That report was likely to have prejudiced the Inquiry' Officer and
the Judicial Committee held that the enquiry was not fair. There
is no question in this case of the Treasury Officer's report having
prejudiced the punishing officer, Mr. D. D. Sharma. The application of the principles of natural justice is not a question of observance of a formula or a mere technicality. In essence it is meant
to assure that the party concerned has an opportunity of being
heard, the principle of audl alteram partam. Whether in any parti·
cular case it has been violated will depend on the facts and circumstances of that case. It is not to be considered that unless all the
procedure of the courts are observed it would mean failure to
observe the principles of natural justice. We are of the opinion
that no principles of natural justice have been violated in this case.
We' think it useful in the circumstances of this case to refer to the
observations made by this Court in Suresh's case to the effect :
'There seems to be an erroneous impression in cer.
tain quarters evidently influenced by the provisions in
An. 311 of the Constitution particularly as Ibey stood
(I) [1962] A.C. 332.
648
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 3 S.C.R.
before the amendment of that article that every disciplinary proceeding must consist of two inquiries, one before
issuing the show cause notice to be followed by another
inquiry thereafter. Such is not the requirement of the
principles of natural justice. Law may or may not prescribe such a course. Even if a show cause notice is provided by law from that it does not follow that a copy of
the report on the basis of which the show cause notice
is issued should be made available to the person proceeded
against or that another inquiry should be held
thereafter."
In the result this appeal is dismissed.
s.c.
Appeal dismissed
B
c