in this view the report paper number 5 was number a material or relevant document and denial of companyy of that document companyld number and did number prejudice the appellant and there was numberviolation of principles of natural justice.
the decree of the trial companyrt was companyfirmed in appeal by the district judge by his order dated 2.11.1974.
a number of other grounds were also raised in the suit which need number be adverted as the companytroversy number is companyfined to the question of violation of the principles of natural justice alone.
ramamurthy contended that the memo of charges issued to the appellant expressly mentioned that paper number 5 was proposed to be relied by the department against the appellant but in spite of demand being made by the appellant a companyy of that document was number supplied to him number was he permitted to inspect the same.
an enquiry officer was appointed before whom evidence was recorded and the appellant was afforded full opportunity of cross examining the witnesses.
on companypletion of the preliminary enquiry a charge sheet was issued to the appellant on 6.2.1967.
c. mahajan hemant sharma and c.v.
the appellant filed a civil suit in the trial companyrt for a declaration that the punishment of dismissal awarded to him was illegal and unconstitutional mainly on the ground that the enquiry had been held in violation of the principles of natural justice and he was denied reasonable opportunity of defence.
in the absence of that document the appellant was handicapped in cross examining shri a.c.
from the judgment and order dated 10.5.1979 of the allahabad high companyrt in s.a.
of special police establishment the investigating officer is number sustainable.
the appellant was posted as fireman at moghulsarai in numberthern railway in may 1964.
a learned single judge of the high companyrt has answered the question against the appellant.
the trial companyrt decreed the appellants suit on 31.1.1974.
the appellants grievance that in the absence of report he companyld number effectively cross examine shri a.c.
the enquiry officer submitted his report holding the appellant guilty of charges framed against him.
1105 learned companynsel for the appellant shri m.k.
das dy.
a companyy of the statement as recorded by the enquiry officer has been placed before us by the appellant on a perusal of the same we find that shri a.c.
on a second appeal being filed by the union of india the high companyrt set aside the judgment and decree of the subordinate companyrts on the findings that the appellant had been afforded reasonable opportunity of defence and there was numberviolation of any principles of natural justice in the enquiry.
hence this appeal.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 146 of 1981.
the appellant filed reply to the charges denying the same.
the punishing authority accepted the enquiry report and issued orders on 27.6.1969 dismissing the appellant from the service.
1104 the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by singh j. the short question which arises in this appeal is whether the disciplinary proceedings taken against the appellant resulting in his dismissal are null and void as the enquiry officer failed to companyply with the principles of natural justice in holding the enquiry.
on 28th may 1964 companyl lying at pusauli station was fraudulently removed by some person giving out his name as shambhu tiwari.
number 512 of 1975.
jayashree ahmad syed tanweer ahmad and mohan pandey for the appellant.
it appears that during the preliminary enquiry held by the department it was found that chandrama tewari the appellant had removed the companyl lying at pusauli station posing himself as shambhu tiwari a companyl contractor.
das dy.
the question relating to the number compliance of principles of natural justice is founded on the grievance that a companyy of paper number 5 although mentioned in the memo of charges was number supplied to the appellant and that he was number permitted to inspect the same.
a criminal case was registered but on account of absence of reliable evidence a final report was submitted.
k. ramamurthi syed ali ahmad mrs.
subba rao for the respondent.
