VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

360 DECISION - 121
Punjab. A departmental inquiry was started against him on the basis
of adverse confidential reports. The respondent was dismissed from
service as a result of this inquiry. The authors of confidential reports
were not examined during the inquiry.
The Supreme Court held that it is impossible to hold that the
respondent had been given reasonable opportunity of conducting
his defence before the inquiry officer. It is clear that if the inquiry
officer had summoned atleast those witnesses who were available
and who could have thrown some light on the reports made against
the respondent, the report might well have been different. Charges
based on the reports for the years 1941 and 1942 should not have
been leveled against the respondent.
The Supreme Court further held that refusal of the right to
examine witnesses who had made general remarks against respondent
and were available for examination at the inquiry amounted to denial
of reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action.
(121)
(A) Compulsory retirement (non-penal)
(B) Public interest
(C) Principles of natural justice — area of operation
(i) Compulsory retirement does not have evil
consequences and rules of natural justice cannot
be invoked.
(ii) Operation of public interest in passing orders of
compulsory retirement, explained.
(iii) Rules of natural justice operate only in areas
not covered by law validly made. They cannot be
used to import an opportunity excluded by
legislation.
Union of India vs. Col. J.N. Sinha,
1970 SLR SC 748