1962 (5) TMI 33 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court remands case on police punishment authority, upholds inquiry procedure and Bombay Police Manual

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the case for further consideration on the authority of the Deputy Inspector General of ... Rules of natural justice - quasi-judicial tribunal procedure - admission of prior statements in evidence - opportunity to cross-examine - validity of Clause (8) of s. 545 of the Bombay Police Manual - power of revising authority to enhance punishmentRules of natural justice - admission of prior statements in evidence - opportunity to cross-examine - quasi-judicial tribunal procedure - Admissibility in disciplinary enquiry of prior statements made in a preliminary investigation without literal re examination before the enquiring officer. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that tribunals and domestic/quasi judicial bodies are not bound by the formal procedure of courts or strict rules of evidence but must act in good faith and afford a fair opportunity to the party affected. The purpose of taking evidence in the presence of the person charged is satisfied where a witness who gave a prior statement is recalled, the previous statement is put to him, copies of it are made available to the person charged and he is afforded an opportunity to cross examine. Insisting that every prior statement be repeated word for word before the enquiring officer is a technicality unnecessary to the substance of natural justice. Earlier decisions recognising that materials relied on must be put to the affected party and that cross examination must be permitted were applied to conclude that the procedure followed by the Deputy Superintendent-bringing on record statements made in the preliminary inquiry, reading them in the presence of the respondent, and allowing detailed cross examination-did not violate the rules of natural justice.The enquiry was not vitiated on the ground of breach of rules of natural justice by admission of prior statements read and put to witnesses with opportunity for cross examination.Validity of Clause (8) of s. 545 of the Bombay Police Manual - rules of natural justice - Whether Clause (8) of s.545 of the Bombay Police Manual is invalid as contravening the rules of natural justice. - HELD THAT: - In view of the conclusion that the procedure of admitting prior statements (when witnesses are recalled, statements put to them, copies supplied to the accused and cross examination allowed) satisfies the requirements of natural justice, the Court held that Clause (8) cannot be struck down as repugnant to natural justice. The clause prescribing the procedure to recall witnesses, read out previous statements and allow cross examination was held to be consistent with the duty to give a fair opportunity to the person charged.Clause (8) of s.545 of the Bombay Police Manual is not invalid for contravening the rules of natural justice.Power of revising authority to enhance punishment - Whether the Deputy Inspector General in revision was entitled to enhance the punishment imposed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. - HELD THAT: - The Court observed that this contention was not decided by the High Court and accordingly did not decide it in the appeal. The question whether the revising authority could enhance punishment in exercise of revisional powers requires fresh hearing and determination by the Court below along with any other points that may arise.The matter is remanded for hearing on whether the revising authority was competent to enhance the punishment and on all other issues requiring decision.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed in part: the order of dismissal is not vitiated for breach of natural justice and Clause (8) of s.545 is not invalid, but the question of the revising authority's power to enhance punishment and other remaining issues are remanded to the Court below for fresh hearing; costs to abide the result of that hearing. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the inquiry procedure by the Deputy Superintendent of Police.2. Whether the Deputy Inspector General of Police had the authority to enhance the punishment in revision.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Inquiry Procedure by the Deputy Superintendent of PoliceThe respondent, a sub-inspector of police, was dismissed following an inquiry initiated on a complaint. The inquiry was conducted under Clause (8) of Section 545 of the Bombay Police Manual, which allows the officer conducting the inquiry to recall witnesses and read out their previous statements in the presence of the accused, providing an opportunity for cross-examination.The High Court of Mysore held that this procedure violated the principles of natural justice, as the evidence should be recorded in the presence of both the inquiring officer and the accused. They declared Section 545(8) of the Bombay Police Manual invalid for contravening natural justice principles and set aside the dismissal order.The Supreme Court examined whether the procedure followed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police was indeed opposed to the rules of natural justice. The Court reiterated that quasi-judicial bodies, unlike courts, are not bound by strict rules of evidence and can gather information from various sources, provided the accused is given a fair opportunity to respond.The Court referred to several precedents, including Union of India v. T.R. Verma (1958) and New Prakash Transport Co. Ltd. v. New Suwarna Transport Co. Ltd. (1957), which clarified that the essence of natural justice is that the accused should know the evidence against them and have an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The Court concluded that the procedure followed, where previous statements were read to witnesses, marked, and the accused was allowed to cross-examine, sufficiently complied with the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the inquiry was not invalidated by the procedure adopted, and Section 545(8) of the Bombay Police Manual was not contrary to natural justice.2. Authority of the Deputy Inspector General of Police to Enhance Punishment in RevisionThe Supreme Court noted that the High Court had not addressed whether the Deputy Inspector General of Police had the authority to enhance the punishment during the revision process. The respondent contended that the enhancement of punishment was beyond the Deputy Inspector General's powers.Given that this issue was not decided by the High Court, the Supreme Court remanded the case for further hearing on this and any other unresolved issues. The costs of the appeal were to be determined based on the outcome of the subsequent hearing in the lower court.ConclusionThe Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the case for further consideration on the authority of the Deputy Inspector General of Police to enhance the punishment and other unresolved issues. The procedure followed in the inquiry was deemed consistent with the principles of natural justice, and Section 545(8) of the Bombay Police Manual was upheld.