C.A. No.893 of 2007 1   

REPORTABLE     

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                    CIVIL APPEAL NO.893 OF 2007

L.I.C. OF INDIA & ANR.       ....Appellants   

Versus RAM PAL SINGH BISEN            ...Respondent

J U D G M E N T   

Deepak Verma, J.  

1.Ignorance is a  bliss, especially in the vast field of  law, stands established from the narration of facts of  this appeal as would fully expose it. Against findings of  fact  vide  judgment  and  decree  recorded  by  Additional  District Judge No.2, Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 93 of 1982  (10/80), decided on 28.5.1993, confirmed in S.B. First  appeal No. 178 of 1993  by learned Single Judge of the  High  Court  of  Judicature  of  Rajasthan  at  Jaipur  and  further affirmed in Special Appeal (Civil) No. 42 of 1996  by  Division  Bench  of  the  said  Court,  decided  on  30.9.2005, unsuccessful appellants/ defendants are before  us, challenging the same on variety of grounds. 2.Needless to say the facts unfolded before us from the

C.A. No.893 of 2007 2   

record as well as during the course of hearing reveal a  sorry state of affairs as to the manner in which suit had  been  contested  in  the  trial  court  by  the  appellants  herein, abutting gross negligence and callous manner, not  even  adhering  to  the  provisions  of  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act, yet challenging  the same before this Court, even after having lost from  all courts. 3.Thumb-nail  sketch of the facts of the case are as  under: 4.Respondent herein original plaintiff was appointed by  the appellants/defendants on probation as a Development  officer on 5.4.1964.   He was confirmed on the said post  on  1.4.1966.   It  is  not  in  dispute  that  his  service  conditions were regulated by Life Insurance Corporation  of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (hereinafter  shall be  referred to as  “Staff Regulations”)  framed in exercise  of powers conferred under clause (b) of sub-section (2)  of Section 49 of Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956  (hereinafter referred to as  the “Act”).   5.Charge sheet dated 16.4.1974 imputing six charges was  served  on  him.   He  was  also  placed  under  suspension.  Supplementary  charge  sheet  was  also  served  on  him  on  21.10.1974.  Mr. R.S. Maheshwari was appointed as Inquiry

C.A. No.893 of 2007 3   

Officer,  who  after  completion  of  inquiry  proceedings  furnished  his  report  to  Disciplinary  Authority  on  29.01.1976.  On the basis of this, respondent was served  with show-cause notice on 23.2.1976  stating inter-alia  that in view of the fact that some of the serious charges  stood proved against him, why order of dismissal from  service be not passed against him. 6.Respondent submitted his reply to the show cause notice  on  02.04.1976,  pointing  out  irregularities  committed  during the course of inquiry by the Inquiry Officer.  His  categorical case in   reply was that he has not been  given  adequate,  proper,  reasonable  and  sufficient  opportunity  of  hearing  during  the  domestic  inquiry.  Therefore,  the  whole  inquiry  stood  vitiated  on  the  principles of natural justice. It deserves to be quashed  and no action on such an inquiry report can be taken  against him. 7.However, without taking note of the submissions of the  respondent, appellants by non speaking order and further  without disclosing any opinion, on the basis of which  respondent was held guilty of charges levelled against  him,  arrived  at  a  conclusion  for  his  dismissal  from  service vide order dated 11.5.1976. 8.Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the respondent was

C.A. No.893 of 2007 4   

constrained  to  prefer  a  departmental  appeal  under  Regulation 40 of  Staff Regulations but that too met the  fate of dismissal vide order dated 20.12.1976.   9.He  then  submitted  further  mercy  appeal  before  the  Chairman of LIC but without any favourable result as the  same came to be dismissed on 12.10.1977. 10.Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed by  appellants  herein,  respondent  as  plaintiff  was  constrained to file a suit,  as an indigent person before  Additional District Judge No.2, Ajmer, for  declaration  that the departmental inquiry proceedings culminating in  order of dismissal from service, the appellate order, and  further order passed by the Chairman of the appellant- Corporation as null and void.  Consequently, he be held  entitled  for  reinstatement  in  service  with  all  consequential  benefits.  The  learned  trial  Judge  was  pleased  to  grant  permission  to  respondent-plaintiff  to  contest the suit as an indigent person.   11.Appellants  herein  as  defendants,  filed  written  statement,  inter  alia,  denying  that  no  proper  or  sufficient  opportunity  was  afforded  to  the  respondent.  They further contended that despite grant of sufficient  opportunity,  respondent  took  undue  adjournments  on  various  earlier  dates  or  had  remained  absent,  and

C.A. No.893 of 2007 5   

thereafter deliberately remained absent from the inquiry  on 5.1.1976, thereby compelling the Inquiry Officer to  proceed ex-parte against him. Thus, even after grant of  several  opportunities,  he  cannot  legitimately  contend  that  inquiry  was  hit  by  the  principles  of  natural  justice. 12.Thus, in general, they have denied averments of the  plaint in toto and submitted that the suit being mis- conceived deserves to be dismissed with costs. 13.On the strength of the pleadings of the parties, trial  court  was  pleased  to  frame  six  issues.  The  main  and  pertinent  issue  was  with  regard  to  the  fact  whether  action  of  the  appellants  resulting  in  respondent’s  dismissal from service, rejection of appeal and further  representation,  was  in  violation  of  the  principles  of  natural justice, if so, then to  what reliefs respondent  was entitled to. 14.Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention  here  that  neither  copy  of  Inquiry  Report  was  made  available to respondent nor it was disclosed in the show  cause notice as to on what premise finding of guilt was  recorded  by  Inquiry  Officer  or  by  the  Disciplinary  Authority while  order of dismissal came to be passed  against him.

C.A. No.893 of 2007 6   

15.To  prove  his  averments  in  the  suit,  respondent- plaintiff tendered himself in the witness box and proved  his  case  as  also  documents  filed  in  support  thereof.  Surprisingly enough, appellants herein did not lead any  oral  evidence,  yet  some  of  the  documents  filed  by  appellants were exhibited, probably under misconception  of  law  that  they  were  not  disputed  in  Court  by  respondent. It is also necessary to mention here that  appellants had also not served any notice of admission or  denial of documents on the respondent during trial as  contemplated under Order XII  Rule 2 of the Code of Civil  Procedure (for short,‘CPC’). 16.After appreciating the evidence available on record,  trial court was pleased to decide the issues in favour of  the respondent-plaintiff, holding therein that there was  complete  violation  of  principles  of  natural  justice  inasmuch  as  no  reasonable,  proper  and  sufficient  opportunity was afforded to him to defend himself in the  departmental enquiry. Similarly, the appellate order was  passed  in  a  mechanical  manner  as  also  the  order  on  representation of the respondent by Chairman.  In the  result,  the Trial Court passed a decree in favour of  respondent, quashing and setting aside order of dismissal  from  service  with  further  direction  to  reinstate  him

C.A. No.893 of 2007 7   

alongwith all consequential benefits including payment of  salary for the intervening period.  17.Against this judgment and decree pronounced by trial  court, appellants were constrained to file regular first  appeal  before  learned  single  judge  of  the  High  Court  which also came to be dismissed by him on 28.5.1993. Not  being satisfied with the same, appellants carried Special  Appeal before the Division Bench of the said High Court  which also came to be dismissed on 30.9.2005.   Hence,  this  appeal  after  grant  of  leave,  by  the  defendants,  having lost from all the three courts. 18.We have accordingly heard Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Mr. K.  Ramamoorthy,  learned  Senior  Counsel  with  Mrs.  Indra  Sawhney,  learned  counsel  for  the  appellants   and  Ms.  Chandan Ramamurthi, learned counsel  for respondent and  have critically examined the records. 19.It is pertinent to mention here that even though oral  evidence lead by respondent plaintiff is not on record,  but on certified copy thereof, being supplied to us by  learned  counsel  for  appellants,  we  have  categorically  gone through the same.  It may be mentioned herein that  in the same, there was not  even a whisper of suggestion  made to the plaintiff that he had appeared in the office  on 5.1.1976 to collect his suspension allowance yet on

C.A. No.893 of 2007 8   

being informed by the inquiry officer, that  his inquiry  too was fixed for the said date,  therefore, he should  come to attend it, on which respondent had informed the  Inquiry Officer that he would appear,  after some time  along with his witnesses.   In other words, even the  defence  that  has  been  pleaded  and  set  up  by  the  appellants in their written statement was not put forth  to the respondent, while he was in the witness box. 20.Thus, the question that arises for consideration is  whether  in  absence  of  any  oral  evidence  having  been  tendered by the appellants,  and especially in absence of  putting their own defence to the respondent  during his  cross examination in the Court, what is the effect of  documents filed by appellants and marked as Exhibits. 21.Despite our persistent requests made to the learned  counsel appearing for the appellants  they have not been  able to show compliance of Order XII Rule 1 and 2 of the  CPC,  meaning  thereby  that  there  has  not  been  any  compliance thereof.  22.Order XII, Rules 1 and 2 appearing in the Code of  Civil Procedure reads as thus:

“ORDER XII   ADMISSIONS

C.A. No.893 of 2007 9   

1. Notice of admission of case. - Any party to a  suit may give notice, by his pleading, or othewise  in writing, that he admits the truth of the whole  or any part of the case of any other party. 2. Notice to admit documents. - Either party may  call upon the other party to admit, within seven  days from the date of service of the notice any  document, saving all just exceptions; and in case  of refusal or neglect to admit, after such notice,  the costs of proving any such document shall be  paid by the party so neglecting or refusing, what- ever the result of the suit may be, unless the  Court otherwise directs; and no costs of proving  any document shall be allowed unless such notice  is given, except where the omission to give the  notice is, in the opinion of the Court, a saving  of expense.”

23.It is also necessary to mention here that Rule 2A of  Order  XII  of  the  CPC  deals  with  the  situation  where  notice of admission as contemplated in Order XII Rule 2  of the CPC has been  served but is not denied then the  same shall be deemed to have been admitted.  Similarly,  Rule 3A of the aforesaid Order grants power to the Court  to admit any document in evidence, even if no notice has  been served.  The aforesaid provisions of law have been  brought in the Code vide Amendment by Act No. 104 of  1976, w.e.f. 1.2.1977. 24.Records  do  not  reveal  that  any  such  procedure  was  adopted either by the appellants or by the Trial Court to  prove the documents filed by the appellants and mark them  as Exhibits.  Thus, no advantage thereof could be accrued

C.A. No.893 of 2007 10   

to  the  appellants,  even  if  it  is  assumed  that  said  documents have been admitted by respondent and were then  exhibited and marked. 25.No doubt, it is true that failure to prove the defence  does not amount to an admission, nor does it reverse or  discharge the burden of proof of the plaintiff but still  the duty cast on the defendants has to be discharged by  adducing  oral  evidence,  which  the  appellants  have  miserably  failed  to  do.   Appellants,  even  though  a  defaulting party, committed breach and failed to carry  out a legislative imposition, then had still to convince  this Court as to what was the just cause for doing the  same.  Thus looking to the matter from any angle, it is  fully established that appellants had miserably failed to  prove and establish their defence in the case. 26.We  are  of  the  firm  opinion  that  mere  admission  of  document in evidence does not amount to its proof. In  other words, mere marking of exhibit on a document does  not dispense with its proof,    which is required to be  done in accordance with law. As has been mentioned herein  above, despite perusal of the record, we have not been  able  to  come  to  know  as  to  under  what  circumstances  respondent plaintiff had admitted those documents.  Even  otherwise, his admission of those documents cannot carry

C.A. No.893 of 2007 11   

the case of the appellants any further and much to the  prejudice of the respondent.   27.It  was  the  duty  of  the  appellants  to  have  proved  documents Exh. A-1 to Exh. A-10 in accordance with law.  Filing  of  the  Inquiry  Report  or  the  evidence  adduced  during  the  domestic  enquiry  would  not  partake  the  character  of  admissible  evidence  in  a  court  of  law.  That documentary evidence was also required to be proved  by the appellants in accordance with the provisions of  the Evidence Act, which they have failed to do.   28.It is also worthwhile to mention here that one of the  complainant Rattan Lal who was examined as witness during  the  departmental  Inquiry  was  not  cross-examined  by  respondent as he was not afforded proper opportunity in  this regard.   29.Learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  has  strenuously  submitted  before  us  that  on  5.1.1976,  respondent  deliberately,  intentionally  and  with  oblique  motives  remained absent from the Departmental Inquiry proceedings  as on the same very  day he had come to the office to  collect  his  dues,  was   then  informed  about  the  proceedings fixed for the same day but he still remained  absent.  The said order sheet is neither signed by the  respondent nor was this defence put up to him when he was

C.A. No.893 of 2007 12   

in the witness box in cross-examination. 30.From the narration of aforesaid facts and law, we are  of the considered opinion that the courts have committed  no error  in coming to the conclusion that respondent was  denied  opportunity  of  hearing,  that  being  so,  whole  proceedings  stand   vitiated  by  non-adherence  to  the  principles of natural justice. 31.Under the Law of Evidence also, it is necessary that  contents of documents are required to be proved either by  primary or by secondary evidence.  At the most, admission  of documents may amount to admission of contents but not  its truth. Documents having not been produced and marked  as required under the Evidence Act cannot be relied upon  by the Court.  Contents of the document cannot be proved  by merely filing in a court. 32.Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. P.S. Patwalia  in his usual, polite yet firm vehemence contended that  looking to the serious allegations levelled against him,  the order of the Trial Court directing reinstatement with  full  back  wages,  which  stood  confirmed  by  Appellate  Courts, would amount to rewarding a dishonest officer.  But looking to the manner in which the case was conducted  in the Trial Court, nothing can be done to grant any  relief to the appellants.  Respondent has been able to

C.A. No.893 of 2007 13   

successfully prove that there was denial of opportunity  to him in the Departmental Enquiry.  In this view of the  matter,  all  subsequent  actions  taken  thereto,  would  automatically fail. 33.In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that  the courts below committed no error in decreeing the suit  of the respondent. 34.It  may  further  be  noted  that  respondent  has  now  retired in the year 2000, after having attained   age of  superannuation.    Thus,  the  question  of  his  re- instatement does not arise.  It could only be a case of  some  monetary  benefit  to  him.   In  view  of  his  superannuation,  it  will  neither  be  fit  nor  proper  to  direct a fresh inquiry to be conducted against him. 35.Thus,  the  appeal  being  devoid  of  any  merit  and  substance  is dismissed.  Appellants to bear the cost of  the litigation throughout.   36. Counsel's fee Rs.10,000/-.

   ......................J.     [B.SUDERSHAN REDDY]

             ......................J.               [DEEPAK VERMA]

March 16, 2010,

C.A. No.893 of 2007 14   

New Delhi.