D&A Rules – Departmental Enquiry – Evidence Act – Natural Justice

No.E(D&A)62RG6-37, dated 02.08.1962

Sub: Departmental enquiries and disciplinary cases

Attention is invited to Board’s letter No.E55RG6-20, dated 04.02.1956 wherein it was, inter alia, stated that a departmental enquiry need not be carried out strictly in accordance with the rules applicable to judicial proceedings but the principles of natural justice should be followed. An extract from a Supreme Court judgment wherein the term ‘Principles of natural justice’ has been broadly defined was forwarded to you for information and guidance, vide Bard’s letter No.E55RG6-20 (D&A), dated 20.07.1959.
In continuation of the above, relevant extracts from the judgments of certain courts in which it has been held that officers holding enquiries in departmental proceedings are not under any obligation to follow strictly the rules of evidence as laid down in the Evidence Act or the procedure prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Code are sent herewith.
The Board desire that these court’s decisions should be brought to the notice of all officers dealing with disciplinary cases, as the principles of these decisions, if followed, should enable the competent authority to deal with the disciplinary cases more expeditiously.

Departmental Proceedings – Their Natures

Extracts from judgments of High Courts

A.I.R. 1958 Punjab 27:-
(K.R. Sharma vs State Of Punjab on 18 September, 1957)

(4) It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that an Enquiry Officer performs in the course of enquiry quasi-judicial functions and the proceedings held by him are in the nature of criminal or at least quasi-criminal proceedings, and, therefore, he must comply, at least in substance, with the provisions of S.173(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
It is, therefore, necessary to determine the nature of the enquiry held under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952. It is stated before me that the charges which the petitioner has been called upon to meet are in substance the same as will be covered by S.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Ss. 161 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, and I shall decide this case on this assumption.
(5) Rule 7(2) lays down the procedure which should be observed in the course of an enquiry.

(3) …………The Punjab Civil Services Rules are only statutory rules regulating terms of service between the Government and its employees. The identical Rules called the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and also the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, were discussed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in S.A. Venkataraman v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1954 SC 375(A).
Their Lordships held that the purpose of such an inquiry is merely to help the Government to come to a definite conclusion regarding the conduct of a Government servant and to decide what penalty, if any, should be imposed upon him. There is no other purpose which is served by this inquiry. The Inquiry Officer is appointed merely to find facts and it is clear from the Rules that it is not the Inquiry Officer’s concern whether the facts established disclose the commission of a criminal offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code or any other law, or they disclose liability to imposition of penalties like censure, or reduction in rank, or dismissal.
He merely sends his report to the proper authority who may or may not accept his conclusions on facts found by him on the evidence produced before him. In these circumstances, it is impossible to hold that proceedings before the Inquiry Officer are of criminal or quasi-criminal nature. Obviously such proceedings cannot be said to be criminal proceedings governed by the terms and provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Inquiry Officer is not a Court within the Criminal Procedure Code, nor is the Government servant accused of any offence, nor is he liable to be sentenced for the commission of an offence under any penal law.
These proceedings cannot be said to be of quasi-criminal nature because the ultimate effect of these proceedings at the most is dismissal of the Government servant from service and the imposition of this penalty cannot be held to be of criminal nature. There is no provision in these rules which makes it incumbent on the Inquiry Officer to hold enquiry in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Criminal Procedure Code or to observe the provisions of S. 173(4) of that Code.
In this view of the matter it cannot possibly be held that the Inquiry Officer is bound to see that the provisions of S. 173(4) are observed before he proceeds to record evidence in the inquiry. If an Inquiry Officer refuses to comply with the provisions of S. 173(4), then it cannot be held that it is liable to be set aside by this Court in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred upon it under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

AIR 1958, Allahabad 532:-
(Ramesh Chandra Verma vs. R.D. Verma And Ors. on 29 October, 1957)

As a broad proposition of law that in a disciplinary enquiry the rules of procedure for a court need not be observed and the rules of evidence need not be strictly followed cannot be disputed, but all the facts of the case will have to be examined. The breach of the rules of evidence which may be nothing but rules of natural justice may be relevant in connection with the question as to whether sufficient opportunity was or was not given to a petitioner in a particular case to show cause against the charges.

AIR 1958 Calcutta 470:-
(Amulya Kumar Sikdar vs. L.M. Bakshi And Ors. on 24 March, 1958)

5. It is true that so far as departmental proceedings are concerned, they are not governed by the Indian Evidence Act, in other words, the strict provisions laid down in the Indian Evidence Act are not applicable to departmental proceedings. Nevertheless, the proceedings are subject to rules of natural justice. The question, therefore, is as to what principle of natural justice is involved in such a case. The rules of natural justice are not codified and cannot be stated with exactitude. In departmental proceedings, it is unnecessary to import the strict procedure applicable to judicial trials. But where the departmental enquiry consists of the trial of a charge in which the punishing authority either by himself or through his delegate has a statutory duty to hear the delinquent or his witnesses, the procedure adopted is to a certain extent like a judicial trial and it is an open question as to whether such proceedings are purely administrative or are to be considered as quasi-judicial. Be that as it may, if the enquiring authority has the duty to come to a conclusion as to the guilt of the delinquent upon an evaluation or assessment of the evidence, then it is entirely necessary that he should be the person who should hear the evidence of the witnesses. It is impossible to evaluate the evidence of a witness taken on proxy, because one of the salient features in such a proceeding is to observe the demeanour of the witness. As it has been said, even the devil doth not know the mind of man, and therefore, to arrive at the truth, it is necessary not only to read the evidence but to see the demeanour of the person giving evidence, and where necessary to elicit answers to doubtful points. To anyone conversant with such trials, it is but an elementary proposition that the demeanour of a witness is the most important element in assessing the value of his evidence. The evidence of a witness, which might sound all right on paper, may be rendered useless by observing his demeanour.

Download Railway Board Circular dated 02.08.1962