Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 45 (GAU)

Pradip Kumar Das v. State of Tripura

2001-02-28

B.B.DEB

body2001
Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. UB Saha, learned Senior Govt Advocate, assisted by Mr. J. Majumdar, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenged the Memo bearing No. F.4 (12989)-DSE/2000 dated 3.1.2001 (Annexure E) and also the Memo bearing No. F.4 (12989)-DSE/2000 dated 1.2.2001 (Annexure G) by which the petitioner had been denied his right to be supplied with the copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution to substantiate the charges. 3. The case, in short, is that the petitioner has been served with a memorandum of charges dated 18.11.2000 under Rule 16 (1) (b) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (herein after referred to as CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965) to face departmental proceeding. The said memorandum of charges contains the imputation of misconduct with particulars, list of documents to be relied upon and the list of witnesses to be examined in order to substantiate the charges. The petitioner on receipt of the said memorandum of charges made repeated requests to the disciplinary authority seeking for supply of the copies of the enlisted documents for taking his defence, but the disciplinary authority instead of supplying the copies of the documents asked the petitioner to make his statement of defence first and by the impugned memorandum the authority declined to supply the copies of the documents to the delinquent petitioner at this stage, but assured the petitioner that he would be allowed all sorts of opportunities at appropriate stage. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the order of such refusal. 4. It appears that the department proceeded against the petitioner with a disciplinary proceeding for imposition of minor penalties as classified under caption 'Minor Penalties' in Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and the procedure to be followed is prescribed under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Rule 16 (1) (b) of the Rules of 1965 envisages that in holding an inquiry for imposition of minor penalties sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 14 is to be followed where formal inquiry is felt necessary. 5. Mr. Rule 16 (1) (b) of the Rules of 1965 envisages that in holding an inquiry for imposition of minor penalties sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 14 is to be followed where formal inquiry is felt necessary. 5. Mr. PR Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that unless the delinquent is supplied with the copies of the documents proposed to be used against him during inquiry, it is not possible for the delinquent to take appropriate defence and this would undoubtedly cause prejudice to the defence resulting denial of principle of natural justice. On the other hand, Mr. UB Saha, learned Senior Govt Advocate appearing for the respondents supporting the impugned memorandum submits that all sorts of reasonable opportunities would be allowed to the petitioner at appropriate stage. At the stage of making written statement of defence by the delinquent, supply of copies of the relevant documents are not necessary nor the procedural law so prescribes such supply at this stage. Mr. Saha, the learned Senior Govt Advocate having drawn my attention to the provisions of sub-rules (3), (4), (5) and (9) of Rule 14 submits that the authority framed the memorandum of charges containing imputation of misconduct and necessary particulars in compliance with sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 and served the same upon the delinquent requiring him to furnish his written statement of defence pursuant to sub-rule (4) of Rule 14 and thus the authority complied the provisions. Now, under sub-rule (5) (a) of Rule 14 the delinquent is to make his written statement of defence within the stipulated time to the disciplinary authority either admitting or denying the charges and on receipt of the written statement of defence, the disciplinary authority is to record its finding and in view of sub-rule (5) (b) of Rule 14, if no written statement of defence is filed by the delinquent, the disciplinary authority may himself inquire into the charges or if he considers it necessary, he may appoint an inquiring authority to conduct the inquiry. 6. Mr. Barman, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that unless his client is supplied with the copies of the documents proposed to be used against him, he cannot make his written statement of defence. By issuing the impugned orders of refusal the authority caused prejudice to the petitioner. 7. 6. Mr. Barman, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that unless his client is supplied with the copies of the documents proposed to be used against him, he cannot make his written statement of defence. By issuing the impugned orders of refusal the authority caused prejudice to the petitioner. 7. From the provisions of sub-rules (3), (4) and (5) of Rule 14, it reveals that the delinquent can deny the memorandum of charges even without consulting the copies of the documents proposed to be used against him. The imputation of misconduct with detailed particulars are very much available in the memorandum of charges itself enabling the petitioner either to admit or to deny the same claiming to be tried, but indeed in course of the inquiry the copies of the documents and contents thereof would be very much relevant atleast for cross examining the witnesses with reference to the documents and thus unless the petitioner is allowed to be apprised of the contents of the documents during inquiry he would be prejudiced, but that stage has not yet come in the present case. The petitioner's right to inspect the documents or to get copies of the documents would accrue only when he would appear before the Inquiring Authority in course of formal inquiry that is before commencement of the recording of evidence, the delinquent is to be allowed all sorts of opportunities including inspection of documents and/or to have the copies of the documents proposed to be used against him. 8. In view of the sub-rule (9) of Rule 14, the delinquent is to be asked by the Inquiring Authority whether he pleads his guilt or has any defence to make 2001(2) F-64 notwithstanding the failure of the delinquent in furnishing written statement of defence. This being the position, I am of the considered opinion that before commencement of the formal inquiry, on denial of the charges by the delinquent, he is not entitled to be supplied with any copy of the documents and/or not entitled to be allowed to insect the documents proposed to be used against him. His such right is only exercisable after recording his plea of innocence and not before. His such right is only exercisable after recording his plea of innocence and not before. The Inquiring Authority before commencement of recording of evidence, is to allow the delinquent all sorts of opportunities including his right to inspect the documents and/or to have copies of the documents proposed to be used against him during inquiry. 9. Mr. Saha, the learned Senior Govt Advocate submits that the delinquent is entitled to inspect the documents proposed to be used against him, but in no case he is entitled to be supplied with the copies of such documents. 10. So far inspection of documents is concerned sub-rule (11) (i) of Rule 14 is very much clear. The Inquiring Authority is under legal obligation to allow the delinquent five days' time to insect the documents proposed to be used against him before starting with the formal inquiry, but so far the supply of copies of the documents is concerned, the Rule is silent. To allow reasonable opportunity in complete manner the delinquent is to be allowed to get the copies of the documents, otherwise he would be handicapped to conduct the cross examination of the witnesses touching the documents. 11. Though the Rule is silent as to whether the delinquent is entitled to be supplied with, the copies of the documents, but in my considered opinion, since inspection of documents is lawfully provided to the delinquent under sub-rule (11) of Rule 14, there will be no hurdle for the delinquent to take note of it and/or to take abstract from the contents of the documents themselves, of course that should be done under the supervision and/or in presence of the Inquiring Authority and/or his authorised nominee. 12. In view of the aforesaid legal position, I am of the considered opinion that in a departmental proceeding under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the delinquent has a right to get the copies of the documents and/or abstract of the contents of the documents proposed to be used against him at his own effort, but under the supervision and in presence of the Inquiring Authority and/or any of his authorised nominee before commencement of the recording of evidence, but not before that stage. In that view of the matter, I hold that the delinquent in a departmental proceeding is not entitled to inspect and/or have copies of the documents prior to the stage of recording his plea of guilt or innocence in view of sub-rule (9) and (11) of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. 13. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is devoid of merit and as such it is dismissed, but no order as to costs.