Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1313 (ALL)

Rameshwar v. Food Corporation Of India

2004-07-21

MARKANDEY KATJU, UMESHWAR PANDEY

body2004
ORDER : M. Katju, Umeshwar Pandey, JJ. This special appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 28.5.2004. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The facts of the case are given in great detail in the judgment of the learned single Judge, and hence we are not repeating the same. We are only considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Appellant. 4. The first submission is that the charge-sheet given to the Appellant was in English but the Appellant knows only Hindi. This submission does not appear to have been made before the learned single Judge as there is no reference to the same in the impugned judgment. 5. It is well-settled that there is a presumption that a single Judge deals with all the points which are pressed before him and if a point is not referred in the judgment then the presumption is that the point was never pressed before the learned single Judge vide State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak AIR 1982 SC 1249 . It often happens that several grounds are taken in the writ petition or appeal but only some of them are pressed by counsel at the hearing. Hence the Judge deals only with the points which are pressed before him. 6. If the learned Counsel urges that the point was in fact pressed before the learned single Judge but it was not considered by him then the counsel should approach the same learned single Judge, and if he convinces him that point was in fact pressed but not considered, it is open to the learned single Judge to consider that point also. 7. It is then submitted that the copies of the documents were not supplied to the Appellant by the Inquiry Officer. This point has been considered by the learned single Judge who has noted that the Appellant was permitted inspection of the documents and taking extracts of the same, but he did not avail of this opportunity. Hence, it cannot be said that the rules of natural justice were violated. After all, the rules of natural justice are not a straitjacket formula vide S.R. Kashyap Vs. Canara Bank and Others, (2004) 2 AWC 1692 and The Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Vs. M/s. Suvarna Board Mills and another, (1994) 5 SCC 566 . 8. Hence, it cannot be said that the rules of natural justice were violated. After all, the rules of natural justice are not a straitjacket formula vide S.R. Kashyap Vs. Canara Bank and Others, (2004) 2 AWC 1692 and The Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Vs. M/s. Suvarna Board Mills and another, (1994) 5 SCC 566 . 8. It was then submitted that no witness was produced by the Management in the enquiry. In our opinion this will not invalidate the enquiry as documentary evidence was produced by the Corporation. Evidence can be both oral or documentary. 9. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that those documents were not proved by any witness before the Inquiry Officer. In this connection the learned single Judge has referred to the Supreme Court judgment in State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh (1982) 1 LLJ 46 and a judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Zonal Manager, LIC of India v. Mohan Lal Saraf 1978 Lab IC 1312, that the strict rules of evidence and CPC do not apply in a departmental inquiry. A similar view has been taken by this Court in S.R. Kashyap Vs. Canara Bank and Others. (supra), This decision was referred to in several Supreme Court decisions. Hence, we find no merit in this submission. 10. It was then contended that the charge-sheet was vague. We do not agree. The charges have been set out in detail in the impugned judgment, and we find that they were specific enough. For instance, Article 11 of the charges states that the Appellant was habitual of ill behaviour, abusing and manhandling/attempt to manhandling with his colleagues and officers, as is evident by his behaviour on 18.10.1978 and 29.6.1979. Article 4 states that the Appellant on 26.5.1979 wrote undesirable words on the wall of Depot Office, Chandari. Article 5 states that the Appellant on 12.5.1984 tore official records and burnt the same. He also made advance signature on Watchman duty register for his duty on 25.12.1985. Article 6 states that the Appellant made false complaints to various officers regarding misappropriation of receipts at FSD Chandari on 13.5.1984. 11. In our opinion these charges are specific. It is well-settled that the charge-sheet is not meant to contain the entire evidence. He also made advance signature on Watchman duty register for his duty on 25.12.1985. Article 6 states that the Appellant made false complaints to various officers regarding misappropriation of receipts at FSD Chandari on 13.5.1984. 11. In our opinion these charges are specific. It is well-settled that the charge-sheet is not meant to contain the entire evidence. The facts of the case show that the Appellant was a totally indisciplined employee who had misbehaved with his superiors and colleagues, and was a law unto himself. Hence this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226. Appeal is dismissed.