Supreme Court of India
SAWAI SINGHversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN
- Citation
- 1986 INSC 105
- Decided
- 2 May 1986
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- E S VENKATARAMIAH
Holding
The departmental inquiry report and the order of removal were unsustainable because the charges were vague, the evidence insufficient, and the department failed to discharge its burden of proof, especially by not providing a cross‑examinable handwriting expert.
Summary
Sawai Singh, a Superintendent in the Rajasthan Government, was removed from service after a departmental inquiry found him guilty of favouring a candidate, manipulating a dummy candidate's withdrawal, and forging a nomination paper by erasing the word "panch". The inquiry relied on vague charges and the testimony of a handwriting expert who was unavailable for cross‑examination because he had died. The High Court dismissed his writ petition and upheld the removal. On special leave, the Supreme Court held that the charges were insufficiently specific, the evidence was perfunctory, and the department failed to meet its burden of proof, especially by not calling another handwriting expert. Consequently, the termination order was set aside, the appellant was entitled to reinstatement (or pension relief) and costs.
Issues considered
- The charges framed against the appellant were vague and did not enable him to meet them fairly.
- Whether the evidence, particularly the handwriting expert testimony, was sufficient to prove the alleged forgery under IPC s.463.
- Whether the department discharged its burden of proof in a departmental inquiry that could result in termination of service.
- The applicability of natural justice principles to departmental inquiries leading to dismissal.
Legislation cited
Subjects
departmental inquirytermination of servicenatural justicevague chargesburden of proofhandwriting expertforgeryIPC s.463Evidence Act s.45cross‑examination
Judgment
957
A
SAWAI SINGH
v.
STATE OF RA.JAS111AN
MAY 2, 1986
B
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.]
!. Termination of services - Nature of charge vague and
~ifficult for any accused to meet the charge and also
unsupported by evidence, absence of opportunity for cross-
examination non-examination of handwriting expert etc. - Order
of termination of service is bad in law. c
2. Burden of proof a serious offence - Evidence of
\ll._andwriting expert necessary but dead - The prosecution should
,-,n another handwriting expert to corroborate the charge -
Penal Code S.463 read with Section 45 Evidence Act.
D
3. Natural justice principle of - Applicability to
Service cases, explained.
The appellant who was working as Superintendent, Sheep
"""and Wool, Nagaur was appointed as a Returning Officer to
conduct Panchayat elections at Sardi in Panchayat Samiti E
Ladnun held in the month of December, 1960. On the 2nd of July
- 1965, the Government of Rajasthan informed the appellant that
an inquiry was proposed to be held against him for showing
undue favour to one of the contesting candidate's by wrongly
..1trejecting another candidate's nomination paper after
F
collllitting forgery by effecting erasion of the the word
"Panch" on the nomination paper. The Additional Colllllissioner
"~for departmental inquiry held the enquiry and on the basis of
his report dated 27th March, 1967, the Government issued a
show cause notice on 3rd October 1968 and after receipt of the
reply cancelled it and issued a fresh show cause notice to
which the appellant again gave an elaborate reply. However by G
an order dated 5.4.1971 the Government directed the removal of
the appellant from service. The Writ Petition filed by the
iappellant challenging the orders of termination was dismissed
su1111arily. The writ appeal also met the same fate. Hence the
appeal by special leave.
H
Allowing the appeal, the Court,
958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19861 2 s.c.R.
A
HELD: 1.1. If the charges are vague and it is very
difficult for any accused to meet the charges fairly and the~
evidence adduced perfunctory and did not at all bring home the
guilt of the accused is entitled to be exonerated of the
offence charged with. Non-allegation by the delinquent either
before the enquiry officer or before the High Court that the
B charges were vague does not by itself exonerate the department
to bring home the charges. Though a departmental enquiry is
not like a criminal trial, the charges involving consequences~
of termination of service llllSt be specific. 965 C-F]
Suresh Oiandra Otaltrabarty v. State of West Bengal, -
c (1971] 3 S.C.R. I; and State of Andhra Pradesh v. s. Sree Ram
Rao, (1964] 3 S.C.R. 25 referred to. .../
1. 2 Having regard to the consequences of the offences '
with which the deliquent officer was charged and having regar~
to the nature of charge and the evidence of hand-writing
D expert and the absence of opportunity for cross-emamination
and the conflicting nature of evidence of Chaturbhuj and
nature of evidence given by Jiwan Dass, in the instant case,
the report of the Inquiry Officer and the consequent
termination order passed by the Government cannot be
sustained. (966 D-E]
E
-
2. In a case where an offence under section 463 Indian
Penal Code is involved and the allegation is sought to be
proved by the evidence of handwriting expert and the
handwriting expert was not available for cross-examination on
the ground that at that time he was dead, then it was ~
F necessary on the part of the department to adduce evidence to
call another handwriting expert to corroborate their charge.
In the absence of such discharge of the burden of proof, the l_ _
Court may draw an adverse inference supported by otfter i~
evidence against the prosecution. (964 B-<:]
G 3.1 There is no such rule that sn offence is not
established unless it is proved beyond doubt. But in a
departmental enquiry entailing consequences like loss of job
which now-a-days means loss of livelihood, there llllSt be fair
play in action, in respect of an order involving adverse or \.-
penal consequences against an employee and there llllSt be
H investigations to the charges consistent with the requirement
SAWAI SINGH v. STATE [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.] 959
A
pf the situation in accordance with the principles of natural
·~ustice in so far as these are applicable in a particular
situation. [965 F-G]
3.2 The application of those principles of natural
justice IDJst always be in conformity with the scheme of the B
Act and the subject matter of the case. It is not possible to
lay down any rigid rules as to which principle of natural
~ustice is to be applied. There is no such thing as technical
natural justice. The requirements of natural justice depend
- upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of
the enquiry the rules under which the Tribunal is acting, the
subject matter to be dealt with and so on. Concept of fair
·J!lay in action which is the basis of natural justice IDJSt
!depend upon the particular lis between the parties. Rules and
c
··fractices are constantly developing to ensure fairness in the
iDaking of decisions which affect people in their daily lives
and livelihood. Without such fairness democratic governments
cannot exist. Beyond all rules and procedures that is the sine D
qua~ [965 H; 966 A-DJ
K. L. Tripathi v. State Banlt of India & Ors., [ 1984 J 1
S.C.C. 43 referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 2179 (N) E
of 1972.
From the Judgment and Order 7. 4.1972 of the Rajasthan
High Court in Special Appeal No. 74 of 1972 •
.....
'
Tapas Roy, S.K. Jain for the Appellant. F
-ifor· theBadri Das Sharma, Surya Kant Sharma and Miss Maya Rao
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
SABYASACllI MIJKHAR.JI, J. This is an appeal by special
leave granted by this court against the order dated 7th April,
.1972 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, at
1odhpur, in Special Appeal No. 74 of 1972. The High Court of
Rajasthan Jodhpur in the said appeal refused to interfere with
the order of the· learned s inglc Judge of that High Court. The H
960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19861 2 s.c.R.
A learned single judge had dismissed the writ petition of the
appellant challenging the order of termination of hi;r.
services.
The appellant was an employee of the Rajasthan
Government and was appointed as returning officer to conduct
Panchayat elections at Sardi in Panchayat Samiti Ladnun in the
B district of Nagpur held in the month of December, 1960. At
that time, the appellant was working as Superintendent, Sheep
& Wool, Nagpur. The election was to take place on 26tt
December, 1960 and the date for submission of nomination forms
was 25th December, 1960. Four persons, namely, Shri
Chaturbhuj, Shri Purna Ram, Shri Jiwan Ram and Shri Jiwan Dass
c filed their nomination forms. The nomination paper filed bu'
Shri Chaturbhuj was alleged to have been found incomplete and1
it was, therefore, rejected. The nomination paper was said tO'
be defective for the following reasons - 1
( i) In the opening line the Ward Number was not
D filled in and the space provided therefore was left
blank ;
(ii) In the second line out of the words Panch
Sarpanch one of the two was not struck out; so that
there was no indication whether the nomination w~
E for the office of Panch or that of Sarpanch.
(iii) In the third line of the blank space again ..,.._
intended to specify the office, the said
F
Chaturbhuj had filled in his own name thus insteaf
of stating that he was proposing himself as
candidate for the office of Panch or Sarpanch, it
1
was found that he was proposing himself a~. __
Chaturbhuj. r
(iv) At the end of sub-paragraph (1) containing a
declaration by the candidate as to his
G qualifications the said Chaturbhuj did not strike
off one of the two words Panch/Sarpanch.
In view of the above, the nomination paper was rejectedt
Shri Jiwan Dass and Shri Jiwan Ram withdrew their candidature
and Shri Puma Ram was left alone in the field and was,
H therefore, elected to the off ice of Sarpanch.
SAWAI SINGI v. STATE [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J,] 961
A
On the 2nd July, 1965, the government of Rajasthan
""' informed the appellant that an enquiry was proposed to be held
against him on charge which was as follows :
"That the said Shri Sawai Singh, while functioning
as District Sheep & Wool Officer, Nagaur, during B
the year 1960 was appointed as Returning Officer to
conduct Panchayat Election at Sardi in Panchayat
Samiti Ladnun in the month of December, 1960. That
the said Shri Sawai Singh showed undue favour to
one of the contesting candidates Shri Purna Ram. He
manipulated the withdrawal of Shri Jeewan Dass a
dulllllY candidate of Shri Chaturbhuj who was c
contesting candidate against Shri Puma Ram. The
said Shri Sawai Singh committed forgery by
effecting erasion in the word "panch" on the
) nomination paper of Shri Chaturbhu.J and malafidely
and improperly rejected his nomination form."
D
The statement of allegations was also sent alongwtth the
forwarding letter and it was mentioned in the said statement
as follows
"4. Shri Sawai Singh manipulated the withdrawal of
Shri Jeevan Dass a dulllll}' candidate of Chaturbhuj by E
cheating.
5. He further conunitted forgery by effecting
erasion in the word 'panch' on the nomination paper
of Shri Chatur Bhuj ·and malafidely and improperly
rejected the nomination form of Chaturbhuj and F
thereby acted in furtherance of the prospects of
the election of Shri Puma Ram as Sarpanch Sardi."
A reply to the said charge-sheet was submi.tted by the
appellant. He denied the charge levelled against him. By an
order dated 4th November, 1965,' the Government appointed the
G
Additional Commissioner for departmental enquiry, Rajas than,
Jaipur as an Enquiry Officer to hold the enquiry against the
appellant. The enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27th
-1, March, 1967. Perusal of the enquiry report makes perfunctory
reading - comparing the evidence of Chaturbhuj and the
appellant it is difficult to accept on what basis the enquiry
H
962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 2 S.C.R.
A
officer accepted the Chaturblmj's version. The Enquiry Officer
did not discuss the inherent improbabilities of the statements )-..
of Chaturbhuj which will be noted later.
On 3rd October, 1968, the government issued a show-cause
notice to the appellant which was as follows :
B
"According to the report of the Enquiry Officer the
charge has been proved to this extent that Shri)..
Sawai Singh with dishonest intention to declare
candidate Poornaram uncontested successful Sarpanch
made changes in the nomination form of Shri
c Chaturbhuj which was complete at the time when was
presented and thus made it incomplete and --(
thereafter illegally rejected it. The State .
Government has provisionally accepted the decision. ''
1
The State Government has provisionally taken. 1
further decision that Shri Sawai Singh be removed
D from State Service for the said mistake. Hence Shri
Sawai Singh is hereby given an opportunity that if
he wants to file a representation against the
provisional decision he may present it within 15
days from the date of receipt of this letter to the
undersigned."
E
It may be mentioned that what was the dishonest motive -
except the inference from the rejection of the nomination
paper on alleged improper grounds nothing was indicated in the
report of the Enquiry Officer.
'f
F This notice, however, was later on cancelled and a fresh
show-cause notice was issued. The appellant gave an elaborate
reply to the said notice. To complete the narration of events,-f--
the government by an order dated 5th April, 1971 accepted the·
findings of the Enquiry Officer and directed his removal from
service. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High
G Court. The writ petition was heard by P.N. Singhal, J, as the
learned judge then was of the High Court and he by his order
dated 31st August, 1971 dismissed the same summarily.
The appellant filed a special Appeal before the Division~
Bench. The said appeal was also summarily dismissed on 7th
H April, 1972. Thereafter on refusal of the High Court to grant
SAWAI SINGH v. STATE [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.] 963
a certificate, by special leave, this appeal has come up A
--1 before us nearly 15 years after the termination of employment.
Shri Tapash Chandra Roy, learned advocate for the
appellant, urged before us three main submissions, namely, (i)
the charges were not clear ; (ii) there was no evidence to
support the charges and on the contrary (iii) the evidence on B
record was contrary to the charges made. The charges framed
~ have been noted namely, ( i) the appellant showed undue favour
to one of the candidates Shri Puma Ram. (i.i) He manipulated
the withdrawal of Jiwan Dass, the dummy candidate of Shri
Chaturbhuj who was the contesting candidate against Shri Purna
Ram and. (iii) Shri Sawai Singh committed forgery by effecting
erasion of the word 'panch' on the nomination paper of Shri c
Chaturbhuj and malafidely rejected his nomination paper. The
second charge i.e. the withdrawal of Jiwan Dass can only be
understood in the light of the statement of Shri Jiwan Dass.
Shri Jiwan Dass stated thus in his evidence which was on the
record of the enquiry :
D
"I withdrew my nomination paper at 3 P.M. I only
heard in the evening that the nomination paper of
Chaturbhuj had been rejecten. l do not know whether
symbol was issued to Chaturrbhuj or not. My
statement was recorded by Collector Ex. P.11 and
also by C.l. which is Ex. P.12. I had withdrawn my
nomination paper voluntarily. No one told me that
nomination paper of Chaturbhuj had been accepted,
and on that basis, I should withdraw I had stated
in portion A to B of the statement marked Ex. P.12
that l was told regarding the acceptance of the
nomination form of Chaturbhuj. For that reason I F
had withdrawn my nomination form. I was not present
when Chaturbhuj had asked the reason for rejection
of his nomination paper. l do not remember whether
l had given the statement marked C to Din Ex. P.12
P.A. to (sic). The statement of Ex. P.11 was taken
by the steno of the Collector in the absence of G
Collector. The steno was drunk at that time. I
cannot say what he recorded in my statement. I had
not stated as marked A to Band C to Din Ex. P.11.
On cross~xamination the Departmental Officer
stated that my nomination form was filled by Sohan
Singh. I was not dummy candidate." H
964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [I 9861 2 s.c.R.
A
A fair reading of the said statement would give a
complete lie to the charge that the appellant manipulated the I--
withdrawal of Jiwan Dass. It is clear that the first charge
was not clear, in the sense, how the appellant had alleged to
have manipulated the withdrawal of Jiwan Dass. It is difficult
for any officer to meet a charge of this nature. The second
B charge was about committing forgery effecting erasion of the
word 'panch' on the nomination paper of Shri Chaturbhuj. This
allegation was sought to be proved by the evidence of
hand-writing expert. The hand-writing expert was not available~
for cross-examination on the ground that at that time he was
dead. But if evidence of hand-writing expert was necessary to
C prove the guilt of the appellant then it was necessary on the
part of the department to adduce evidence to call another
hand-writing expert to corroborate their charge.
In order to prove the charge against him it was necessary
to establish that Shri Chaturbhuj had filed nomination being
D Ex. P.13, complete in all respects. Shri Chaturbhuj is the
complainant and his evidence on filing of the nomination paper
is not only contradictory but also leads one to believe that
he had filed an incomplete nomination form. Shri Chatur Bhuj
in Ex. E.H. Pl (D.E.) stated that his nomination paper was
fuly filled in by him. This was taken by the Enquiry Officer
E to mean that the nomination paper was complete in all respects ;.
and wrongly rejected. Shri Chaturbhuj on 8th July, 1966 was
shown the nomination from Ex. P.13 and he admitted that Ex.
Pl3 bears his signatures and that he had submitted it for
Sarpanch but he did not say that whether he had struck off the
word 'panch' in the nomination paper so as to convey his 1'
F proposal for Sarpanch. He also could not say on seeing the
nomination paper that the word 'Panch' in the nomination paper
marked A & B by the Additional Commissioner Departmental
Enquiry had been struck off or not. He could not say whether '
4-
any rubbing or erasion of the word 'Panch' had taken place or
not. Shri Chaturbhuj had stated that he did not remember who
G had written his nomination paper. There were two persons
present at that time. One was his brother Shri Dhar who was
not produced in the Departmental Enquiry and the other was
Puran Chand Sharma of Ladnun. This was an ambiguous and
misleading statement. On the other hand, in the evidence of )--
Shri Puran Chand, he said that he had filled up one form for
H
SAWAI SINGH v. STATE [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J,] 965
A
~ Shri Chaturbhuj for Sarpanchship and identified the same to be
' Ex.13. He stated after a look at Ex. P.13 that the form was
filled up by him in his own hand except the signatures which
were done by Shri Chaturbhuj himself in his presence. When the
form was shown to him, he stated in his examination-in-chief
that the name of Shri Chaturbhuj in Ex. P.13 marked G to Hand B
1 to J was in the hand-writing of Shri Chaturbhuj himself and
also the signatures K to L were in the handwriting of Shri
~ Chatur Bhuj. There were several other contradictions in the
said statement of Puran Chand which were mentioned in
paragraphs 11 to 13 of the writ petition before the High
,,. Court. These were not considered by the High Court.
c
'"- Quite apart from that fact, it appears to us that the
( charges were vague and it was difficult to meet the charges
\ fairly by any accused. Evidence adduced was perforict,>ry and
did not at all bring home the guilt of the accused.
Shri B.D. Sharma, learned advocate for the respondent, D
contended that no allegations had been made before the enquiry
officer or before the High Court, that the charges were vague.
In fact the appellant had participated in the enquiry. That
does not by itself exonerate the department to bring home the
charges.
-" E
It has been observed by this Court in Suresh <Jumdra
Ciakrabarty v. State of West Bengal [1971] 3 S.C.R. 1 that
charges involving consequences of termination of service IDllSt
be specific, though a departmental enquiry is not like a
'< ~ criminal trial as was noted by this Court in the case of State
of Aodhra Pradesh v. S, Sree Rama Rao [1964] 3 S.C.R. 25 and F
as such there is no such rule that an offence is not
established unless it is proved beyond doubt. But a
departmental enquiry entailing consequences like loss of job
which now-a-days means loss of livelihood, there must be fair
play in action, in respect of an order involving adverse or
penal consequences against an employee, there llllSt be G
investigations to the charges consistent with the requirement
of the situation in accordance with the principles of natural
justice in so far as these are applicable in a particular
situation.
The application of those principles of natural justice H
966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (19861 2 s.c.R.
A must always be in conformity with the scheme of the Act and.
the subject matter of the case. It is not possible to lay down~
any rigid rules as to which principle of natural justice is to
be applied. There is no such thing as technical natural
justice. The requirements of natural justice depend upon the
facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the
enquiry, the rules under which the Tribunal is acting, the
B subject matter to be dealt with and so on. Concept of fair
play in action which is the basis of natural justice llllSt
depend upon the particular lis between the parties. (See K.L. )-.
Trlpathi v. State Banlt of India & Ors., [1984] 1 S.C.C. 43)
Rules and practices are constantly developing to ensure
fairness in the making of decisions which affect people in
c their daily lives and livelihood. Without such fairness._/
democratic governments cannot exist. Beyond all rules and l
procedures that is the sine qua non.
Having regard to the consequences of the offences with
which the delinquent officer was charged and having regard to
D
the nature of charge and the evidence of hand-writing expert
and the absence of opportunity for cross-examination and the
conflicting nature of e~idence of Chaturbhuj and nature of
evidence given by Ji wan Dass, we are of the opinion that the
report of the enquiry officer finding the appellant guilty
shOLtld not have been sustained and the government should not i..
E have acted upon it. The High Court in our opinion, with great
resped, was in error in not bearing in mind these aspects
which have been indicated hereinbefore.
In that view of the matter, the order of the High Court /
cannot be sustained. In the premises, the order and judgment
F
of the High Court are set aside. The appeal is al lowed. The
appellant is entitled to the costs of this appeal. The
appellant would also be entitled to his remuneration and
sRlary for all this period. We do not know if during the
pendency of this appeal the appellant has superannuated and
retired. If that is so, he should be in service upto the date
G
of superannuation with the entitlement of pensionary relief.
If not, he should be re-instated.
Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "departmental inquiry"Sign in to search