Skip to content


The State of Punjab Vs. Bhagat Ram - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution;Service
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 4 of 1970
Judge
Reported inAIR1974SC2335; [1974(29)FLR439]; 1974LabIC1442; (1975)1SCC155; [1975]2SCR370; 1974(6)LC664(SC)
ActsConstitution of India - Article 311
AppellantThe State of Punjab
RespondentBhagat Ram
Appellant Advocate O.P. Sharma, Adv
Respondent Advocate Hardayal Hardy and ; P.P Juneja, Advs.
Prior historyAppeal from the Judgment and Decree dated November 14, 1968 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in R.F.A. Nos. 154 and 186 of 1964
Excerpt:
- indian penal code, 1890.section 304-a: [l.s. panta & b. sudershan reddy,jj] medical negligence - prosecution of medical practitioners held, indiscriminate prosecution of medical professional for criminal medical negligence is counterproductive and does not service or good to society. .....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.8. 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 leveled 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.9. for these reasons the appeal is dismissed. the state will pay costs -to the respondent.
Judgment:

A.N. Ray, C.J.

1. 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.

2. The respondent was a Sub Divisional Officer. The State ordered a departmental enquiry against the respondent.

3. The respondent filed a suit for a declaration that the dismissal of the respondent was illegal. One of the 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.

4. 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.

5. The High Court upheld the decision.

6. The State contended that the respondent was viol 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 as per dent with the gist of the evidence.

7. 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.

8. 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 leveled 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.

9. For these reasons the appeal is dismissed. The State will pay costs -to the respondent.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //