Supreme Court of India
VIJAY KUMAR NIGAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.
- Decided
- 6 November 1996
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 544 · 1996 INSC 1299
- Also cited as
- (1996) 11 SCC 599
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Though the legal representatives of the appellant have been brought on record, they did not appear either in person or through counsel. We have taken the assistance of Shri S.K. Agnihotri, learned counsel for the State.
p. 545, margin A
The appellant, while working as Sub-Inspector, and being in-charge of the Police Station Pakhanjur, District Jagadalpur, on receipt of illegal gratification fuiled to prevent the running of common gambling house of one N.K. Ghosh. Consequently, in the departmental enquiry initiated against him the Enquiry Officer, after due enquiry and giving him opportunity, found thatthe appellant had received illegal gratification from the organiser of gambling, N.K.Ghosh. Thereby, misconduct was proved against him. Based thereon, he was dismissed from service by order dated July 31, 1971. On appeal, it was confirmed by the Inspector General of Police by order dated January 21, 1974. The same came to be challenged in the Misc. Petition No. 204/74. The Division Bench of the High Court in !he impugned judgment dated may 2, 1978, dismissed the same. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
p. 545, margin B
Two grounds have been pressed for consideration in the High Court and reiterated in the appeal. The main ground was that the report of the preliminary enquiry conducted against him before initiating departmental enquiry, was not supplied to him and, therefore, it is violative of the principle of natural justice. The High Court has rejected the contention and, in our view quite, rightly. The preliminary report is only to decide and assess whether it would be necessary to take any disciplinary action against the delinquent officer and it does not form any foundation for passing the order of dismissal against the employee. The High Court also found as a fact that all the statements of persons that formed basis for report, recorded during the preliminary enquiry were supplied to the delinquent officer. It was then contended that one of the constables, namely, Palairam was a co-accused who was also charged along with the appellant and his evidence was taken into consideration in deciding against the appellant which is inadmissible in evidence. In a departmental enquiry, the question, whether or not any delinquent officer is co-accused with other does not arise. That would arise in a prosecution laid for officer under the !PC or prevention of Corruption Act. The evidence recorded in the depart1nental enquiry stricto senso is not evidence as per the provisions of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the statement of Palairam also formed part of the record which could be taken into account in adjudging the misconduct against the appellant. The Inspector General of Pclice had stated that even if that evidence was excluded from consideration, there was other sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that the appellant had taken illegal gratification from the organiser of gambling. Thus, the High Court has not committed any error of law in dismissing the writ petition of the appellant.
pp. 545–546, margin D
The appeal is accordingly dismissed, No costs. R.P. Appeal dismissed.
p. 546, margin B