IN-Abs/train-data/summary/3469.txt

The appellant was a Police Constable.
Some persons were convicted for transporting smuggled illicit liquor under section 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act.
The Police Sub Inspector submitted a Confidential report on that incident to the Superintendent of Police and pointed out that some Police Constables including the appellant were indulging in smuggling illicit liquor.
The Superintendent of Police directed the P.S.I. to record the statements of three constables, Akki, Waman and Nishikant.
The Police Sub Inspector, therefore, recorded the statements of those constables in the presence of the Superintendent of Police.
The statements of Akki and Nishikant disclosed their complicity as well as complicity of six other Police constables including the appellant D.S.P. ordered the S.D.P.O. to hold a departmental enquiry against them.
They were all transferred from Belgaum and directed not to leave their new station without the permission of the D.S.P. except for purposes of or in connection with departmental enquiry.
The appellant did not plead guilty.
The Enquiry Officer held enquiry.
A number of witnesses were examined both by the prosecution and the defence.
The Enquiry Officer made a report to the Superintendent of Police that the charge against the appellant was not established.
He, however, recommended that the appellant should be administered a severe warning since he was guilty of misconduct and dereliction of duty.
The Superintendent of Police did not agree with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and directed him to examine Police Constable Akki whose statement had been recorded before the enquiry was ordered against the appellant.
Akki was accordingly examined but he resiled from his earlier statement.
The Enquiry Officer again submitted a further report and struck to his former recommendation regarding administration of severe warning to the appellant.
The Superintendent of Police disagreed with the report of the Enquiry Officer and found that there was sufficient evidence against the appellant to prove his guilt.
Accordingly, he issued a notice to the appellant calling upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service.
Not feeling satisfied with the explanation tendered by the appelant the Superintendent of Police passed an order dismissing the appellant from service.
An appeal filed to the D.I.G. was unsuccessful and so was a revision to the Government.
Thereafter, the appellant filed a suit challenging the order of dismissal and claiming arrears of pay.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit.
The Lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the Trial Court.
The High Court allowed the second appeal filed by the State.
In an appeal by Special Leave, the appellant contended: (1) The appellant was deprived of a reasonable opportunity of defending himself during the course of the departmental enquiry.
He was not permitted to remain at Belgaum during the period of his suspension.
Evidence of some of the prosecution witnesses was recorded in his absence.
(2) The impugned judgment and decree cannot be sustained as there is no cogent legal evidence to establish the charge against the appellant.
Dismissing the appeal, ^ HELD: (1) Whether a delinquent had a reasonable opportunity of effectively defending himself is a, question of fact depending on circumstances of each 914 case and no hard and fast rule can be laid in that behalf.
In the instant case, the order restricting his movement was not such as can be said to have deprived him of reasonable opportunity of making his defence.
The order did not place any embargo on the appellant going to Belgaum for the purpose of and in connection with the departmental enquiry.
In fact, the appellant fully participated in the enquiry held at that place.
He also made full use of the assistance of a policeman called Police friend, Provided to him to conduct the defence on his behalf.
He was furnished with the statements recorded of the 3 constables before the enquiry was ordered.
The witnesses examined by the prosecution were tendered for cross examination.
It, therefore, cannot be held that a reasonable opportunity as contemplated by Article 311 of the Constitution was denied to the appellant.
[916 D G] (2) Neither the High Court nor this Court can re examine and reassess the evidence in domestic enquiries of the instant nature.
Whether or not there is sufficient evidence agaiast a delinquent to justify his dismissal from service is a matter on which this Court cannot embark.
The departmental proceedings do not stand on the same footing as criminal proceedings in which high degree of proof is required.
The departmental proceedings are not covered by strict rules of evidence as contained in the Evidence Act.
A copy of the statement made by Akki earlier was furnished to the appellant and he examined all the 3 constables including Akki who made statements before the enquiry was ordered.
[916 H, 917 A C] State of Mysore vs Shivasappa, ; ; ; ; State of U.P. vs Om Prakash, A.I.R. followed; Ghanshyam Das Shrivastava vs State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1183 distinguished.