http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: STATE OF PUNJAB

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BHAGAT RAM

DATE OF JUDGMENT09/10/1974

BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN ALAGIRISWAMI, A.

CITATION:  1974 AIR 2335            1975 SCR  (2) 370  1975 SCC  (1) 155  CITATOR INFO :  R          1986 SC2118  (12)  RF         1988 SC 117  (3,7)

ACT: Constitution of India, 1950-Art. 311 -Supply of synopsis  of evidence of witnesses examined during investigation- Whether satisfies the requirement of reasonable opportunity.

HEADNOTE: In a suit for declaration that his dismissal was illegal the respondent contended that copies of statements of  witnesses to be examined at the departmental enquiry were not supplied to him in spite of his request. The trial court held  that no   reasonable opportunity was given to the  respondent. The High Court up held the    decision of the trial court. On  appeal to this Court it was contended by  the  appellant that a synopsis of the evidence was adequate to acquaint the respondent to cross-examine the witnesses at the inquiry. Dismissing the appeal, HELD  :  It  is unjust and unfair  to  deny  the  Government servant  copier. of statements of witnesses examined  during investigation and produced at the inquiry in support of  the charges  leveled against him.  A synopsis does  not  satisfy the   requirements  of  giving  the  Government  servant   a reasonable  opportunity of showing cause against the  action proposed to be taken. [371 D-E]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1970. Appeal  from the Judgment & Decree dated the 14th  November, 1968 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in R.F.A. Nos. 154 & 186 of 1964. 0. P. Sharma, for the appellant. Hardayal Hardey and P. P. Juneja, for the respondent. 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   contemplated  by  Article  311   of   the Constitution.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

The  respondent  was a Sub Divisional  Officer.   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.  One of he  grounds challenging  the  order  of dismissal  was  that  copies  of statements   recorded  by  the  police  in  the  course   of investigation  of the witnesses proposed to be  examined  at the  departmental enquiry were not supplied by the State  to the respondent in spite of the request in that behalf. The  trial Court found that copies of the statements of  the witnesses as recorded by the Vigilance Department during the preliminary enquiry were not supplied to the respondent  but only  the synopsis was given.  The trial  Court,  therefore, held  that  no  reasonable  opportunity  was  given  to  the respondent. 371      The High Court upheld the decision. The State contended that the respondent was not entitled  to get  copies  of statements. 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  confronting  the witnesses  with  the statements. It is  contended  that  the synopsis  was adequate to acquaint the respondent  with  the gist of the evidence. The  meaning  of a reasonable opportunity of  showing  cause against  the  action  proposed  to  be  taken  is  that  the Government  servant is afforded a reasonable opportunity  to defend himself against charges on which inquiry is held. The Government  servant should be given an opportunity  to  deny his guilt and establish his innocence. He can do so when  he is  told what the charges against him are. ’He can do so  by cross  examining  the witnesses produced  against  him.  The object  of  supplying  statements  is  that  the  Government servant will be able to refer to the previous statements  of the witnesses proposed to be examined against the Government servant.  Unless the statements are given to the  Government servant he will not be able to have an effective and  useful cross-examination. It  is  unjust  and unfair to deny  the  Government  servant copies   of   statements  of   witnesses   examined   during investigation and produced at the inquiry in support of  the charges levelled against the Government servant. A  synopsis does  not satisfy the requirements of giving the  Government servant  a reasonable opportunity of showing  cause  against the action proposed to be taken. For  these reasons the appeal is dismissed. The  State  will pay costs to the respondent. P.B.R.                                                Appeal dismissed. 9--255SupCI 75 372