http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

PETITIONER: J.L. JAIN.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/02/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCALE  (2)SP74

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                           O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard the counsel on both sides.      The notice issued in this case itself indicates why the inquiry should  not be  reopened; the inquiry officer should not  give   another  opportunity   to     the  appellant  to participate in  the inquiry.  It was also stated that if the respondent is  agreeable to  reopen the  matter, it would be confined to  only one  time  opportunity  to  appellant  and unless  the   appellant  participates  in  the  inquiry  and conducts his case, he  would forfeit his defence. In view of the notice  and in  view of the statement of the respondents in the  counter-affidavit that they are agreeable to give an opportunity, the impugned order is set aside and opportunity is directed  to ba  given to the appellant to participate in the inquiry. The inquiry officer is directed to issue notice to the  appellant by registered post with acknowledgment due giving 30  days’ time  fixing  a  date  on  which  date  the appellant should  appear and participate in the inquiry. The inquiry officer  is  directed  to  make  available  all  the witnesses sought  to be  examined in  proof of the charge on that date  and it  would be  open to the appellant to cross- examine those  witnesses. If the appellant intends to adduce any defence  evidences inquiry  officer is  directed to give another date  to the  appellant to  adduce the  same on  the adjourned  day;   the  inquiry   would  be  completed  after examining those  witnesses. Thereafter,  the inquiry officer would  free   to  proceed   according  to   rules  and  take appropriate action.      The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.