Appeal from the Judgment Decree dated the 14th November, 1968 of the Punjab Haryana High Court in R.F.A. Nos.
The trial Court found that companyies of the statements of the witnesses as recorded by the Vigilance Department during the preliminary enquiry were number supplied to the respondent but only the synopsis was given.
The reasoning of the State was that the respondent was given the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and during the cross examination the respondent would have the opportunity of companyfronting the witnesses with the statements.
P. Sharma, for the appellant.
One of he grounds challenging the order of dismissal was that companyies of statements recorded by the police in the companyrse of investigation of the witnesses proposed to be examined at the departmental enquiry were number supplied by the State to the respondent in spite of the request in that behalf.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
4 of 1970.
The respondent was a Sub Divisional Officer.
The State companytended that the respondent was number entitled to get companyies of statements.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C.J. This appeal by certificate turns on the question as to whether the State gave the respondent a reasonable opportunity as companytemplated by Article 311 of the Constitution.
Hardayal Hardey and P. P. Juneja, for the respondent.
The State ordered a departmental enquiry against the respondent.
The respondent filed a suit for a declaration that the dismissal of the respondent was illegal.
154 186 of 1964.
