D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1855/2010. Case: Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Vs Rajendra Prasad Sharma and Anr.. Rajasthan High Court
| Case Number | D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1855/2010 |
| Judges | K.S. Rathore and Mahesh Bhagwati, JJ. |
| Issue | Civil Procedure Code |
| Citation | 2010 (2) WLN 23 |
| Judgement Date | February 22, 2010 |
| Court | Rajasthan High Court |
Judgment:
K.S. Rathore, J.
-
This writ petition is directed against the order dated 02.09.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur in Original Application No. 532/2004, whereby the Original Application filed by the respondent No. 1 Rajendra Prasad Sharma was allowed.
-
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
-
The petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment dated 02.09.2009 passed by the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, challenged the same on the ground that the question which has been framed by the learned Tribunal for its decision is that the complainant Smt. Prem Devi was not called for examination in the departmental enquiry and therefore, because of this irregularity, the entire enquiry was illegal and against the principles of natural justice in view of the various judgments pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the ratio decided in the judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police reported in AIR 1999 SC 677; State of Punjab v. Dewan Chuni lal reported in AIR 1970 SC 2086; and Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Prakash Chand Jain reported in AIR 1969 SC 983 is not applicable and has wrongly been applied in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as ample opportunities have been provided to the respondent-applicant to examine the witnesses. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the Appellate Authority has rightly considered the fact that PW-1 Harbeer Singh and PW-2 Eepon Chako, produced as witnesses, verified this fact that statements of Smt. Prem Bai was recorded and the same was equivalent to secondary evidence.
-
Learned Tribunal after thoroughly considering the Appellate order passed by the Appellant Authority observed that the statements of PW-1 and PW2 only verified the factum of the statement of the Smt. Prem Bai which was recorded during the investigation. Such statement cannot be considered as secondary evidence.
-
Further learned Tribunal considered the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh (supra) wherein it has been held that reasonable opportunity contemplated by Article 311(2) means 'hearing' in accordance, with the principles of natural justice under which one of the basic requirements is that all the witnesses in the departmental enquiry shall be examined in the presence of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial