Case Note & Summary
This appeal by special leave arose from a judgment of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court which dismissed the appellant bank's appeal against a Single Judge's order allowing a writ petition and quashing an award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal that had upheld the dismissal of respondent No.1, a bank employee. The respondent was initially appointed in 1961 and promoted to Head Cashier in 1970. In 1975, the appellant lodged an FIR with the CBI alleging that the respondent had accepted illegal gratification while working as cashier during 1970-71. The CBI submitted a final report in 1977 stating no reliable evidence was available, and the court accepted that report. Meanwhile, the appellant commenced departmental proceedings and served a charge-sheet in 1976 alleging four charges: demanding and accepting bribes from several individuals, accepting bribe from a sweeper for bonus payment, accepting bribe for arranging a temporary appointment, and raising a fictitious loan. An Inquiry Officer recorded evidence including statements of witnesses whose earlier statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had been recorded by the CBI. Those earlier statements were read over to the witnesses, admitted by them, and copies were given to the respondent before cross-examination. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report in 1979, and the appellant dismissed the respondent. The respondent's appeal failed, and the industrial dispute was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, which upheld the dismissal in 1984. The High Court initially remanded the matter in 1984, but the Tribunal again upheld the dismissal in 1985. The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the respondent's writ petition in 1992 on two grounds: that Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements were inadmissible in disciplinary proceedings, and that the presence of a CBI Inspector during the inquiry vitiated the proceedings. The Division Bench dismissed the appellant's appeal with a modification regarding back wages. The Supreme Court examined the procedure adopted by the Inquiry Officer and held that strict rules of evidence do not apply in domestic inquiries. It observed that the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., though not admissible in a criminal trial, could be used in a disciplinary inquiry. The prior statement read over to a witness who admitted its contents became part of the examination-in-chief, and providing a copy and full cross-examination satisfied natural justice. The Court relied on State of Mysore v. S.S. Makapur to say that requiring word-by-word repetition is a bare technicality. It also referred to Khatri v. State of Bihar to hold that the bar under Section 162 Cr.P.C. does not apply to disciplinary proceedings. The respondent's reliance on Kesoram Cotton Mills was distinguished. The available text does not contain the final operative paragraph, but the Court's reasoning clearly rejected the High Court's grounds and indicated that the appeal should be allowed, thus upholding the dismissal.
Headnote
A) Evidence in Domestic Inquiries - Admissibility of Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statements - Natural Justice - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 161 and 162 - The High Court held that statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were not admissible and their admission vitiated the disciplinary inquiry. The Supreme Court observed that strict rules of evidence do not apply in domestic inquiries and natural justice is a matter of substance, not form. It relied on State of Mysore v. S.S. Makapur to hold that when a prior statement is read over to a witness, admitted, a copy is supplied to the delinquent, and cross-examination is allowed, natural justice is complied with. Held that the High Court erred in vitiating the inquiry on this ground. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Criminal Procedure - Bar Under Section 162 Cr.P.C. - Applicability to Disciplinary Proceedings - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 162 - The Court reiterated that the bar under Section 162 Cr.P.C. applies only where the statement is sought to be used at an inquiry or trial in respect of the same offence under investigation. In a disciplinary inquiry for a different purpose, the bar is not attracted. The Court cited Khatri v. State of Bihar. Held that use of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements in the domestic inquiry was permissible. (Paras Not mentioned) C) Natural Justice - Manner of Recording Evidence - Prejudice from Reading Prepared Statements - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 161 - The respondent argued based on Kesoram Cotton Mills that reading a prepared statement may prejudice illiterate workers. The Court distinguished that case, noting it did not declare the procedure illegal but recommended oral examination as the norm. In the present case, statements were supplied in advance and full cross-examination was allowed, so no prejudice was caused. Held that the procedure did not violate natural justice. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC are admissible in a domestic/departmental inquiry; whether reading over prior statements to witnesses and admitting them without repeating verbatim violates principles of natural justice; whether presence of CBI Inspector during disciplinary proceedings vitiated the inquiry
Final Decision
The Supreme Court rejected the High Court's reasoning that Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements were inadmissible and that the CBI Inspector's presence vitiated the inquiry; it held that the disciplinary inquiry complied with natural justice. The final operative order is not included in the extracted text, but the court's analysis indicated that the appeal should be allowed and the Tribunal's award upholding dismissal restored.
Law Points
- Strict rules of evidence do not apply in domestic inquiries
- principles of natural justice are matters of substance not form
- Section 161 CrPC statements can be used in disciplinary inquiry if read over to witness and admitted with cross-examination
- bar under Section 162 CrPC not attracted in non-criminal disciplinary proceedings
- reading prior statement to witness who admits contents becomes part of examination-in-chief
- no violation if copy supplied and opportunity to cross-examine given
