Supreme Court rules in favor of government servant's access to full witness statements for defense.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that denying the government servant access to full witness statements hindered their ability to defend effectively. The State was directed to cover the respondent's costs, emphasizing the necessity of providing government servants with a genuine opportunity to defend themselves in disciplinary proceedings, including access to complete witness statements for cross-examination.

---

---

Issues involved: Whether the State provided the respondent a reasonable opportunity as per Article 311 of the Constitution.

Summary:
The respondent, a Sub Divisional Officer, faced a departmental enquiry initiated by the State, leading to a legal challenge against the dismissal. The primary contention was the non-supply of witness statements recorded during investigation to the respondent. The trial Court found the State's action inadequate, emphasizing the importance of providing the respondent with full statements rather than just a synopsis. The High Court upheld this decision.

The State argued against providing full statements, claiming that the opportunity for cross-examination sufficed. However, the Supreme Court clarified that a reasonable opportunity under Article 311 entails allowing the government servant to defend themselves effectively, including the right to cross-examine witnesses based on their statements. Denying the government servant access to full witness statements was deemed unjust and unfair, as it hindered their ability to adequately challenge the charges brought against them.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, with the State directed to bear the respondent's costs. The judgment reaffirmed the importance of providing government servants with a genuine opportunity to defend themselves in disciplinary proceedings, including access to complete witness statements for effective cross-examination.

---