Full Text
Translation output
RSA NO. 323/2014 Page 1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 7th November, 2014
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 7th November, 2014
RSA 323/2014 & C.M. No.18140/2014
G K NIJHAWAN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. B.S.Rana, Advocate
G K NIJHAWAN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. B.S.Rana, Advocate
VERSUS
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Rana, Advocate
Through: Mr. Sanjay Rana, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(Oral)
Appellant, an employee of respondent-Corporation, was charged with misconduct and after a departmental enquiry, a major penalty of reduction in basic pay by two steps was inflicted upon him, which was challenged by way of a civil suit and the said civil suit has been dismissed by trial court and the said dismissal stands affirmed by the First Appellate
Court vide impugned judgment of 26th August, 2014.
The factual matrix of this case stands already noticed in the opening paragraphs of the impugned judgment and needs no reproduction.
At the hearing of second appeal, learned counsel for appellant contended that Enquiry Officer (DW-2) has admitted in evidence that procedure of enquiry was not explained to appellant and thus, the Enquiry
Officer (DW-2) had violated the principles of natural justice, thereby
2014:DHC:5763
Appellant, an employee of respondent-Corporation, was charged with misconduct and after a departmental enquiry, a major penalty of reduction in basic pay by two steps was inflicted upon him, which was challenged by way of a civil suit and the said civil suit has been dismissed by trial court and the said dismissal stands affirmed by the First Appellate
Court vide impugned judgment of 26th August, 2014.
The factual matrix of this case stands already noticed in the opening paragraphs of the impugned judgment and needs no reproduction.
At the hearing of second appeal, learned counsel for appellant contended that Enquiry Officer (DW-2) has admitted in evidence that procedure of enquiry was not explained to appellant and thus, the Enquiry
Officer (DW-2) had violated the principles of natural justice, thereby
2014:DHC:5763
RSA NO. 323/2014 Page 2 vitiating the enquiry proceedings. It was contended by learned counsel for appellant that Enquiry Officer (DW-2) had acted as a prosecutor, as appellant was cross-examined by the Enquiry Officer (DW-2) and the courts below have not correctly appreciated the aforesaid infirmities thereby rendering the findings returned as perverse.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned judgment, trial court’s judgment and material on record, I find that non-explanation of procedure of enquiry to appellant does not cause any prejudice to appellant for the reason that Enquiry Officer (DW-2) had asked the appellant to present his case and then, appellant had presented his case and appellant had not asked the Enquiry Officer (DW-2) to explain the procedure of enquiry to him. Infact, the relevant extract of the proceedings conducted by the Enquiry Officer (DW-2) is reproduced in paragraph No.12 of the impugned judgment, which reveals that there is no violation of principles of natural justice by the Enquiry Officer (DW-
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned judgment, trial court’s judgment and material on record, I find that non-explanation of procedure of enquiry to appellant does not cause any prejudice to appellant for the reason that Enquiry Officer (DW-2) had asked the appellant to present his case and then, appellant had presented his case and appellant had not asked the Enquiry Officer (DW-2) to explain the procedure of enquiry to him. Infact, the relevant extract of the proceedings conducted by the Enquiry Officer (DW-2) is reproduced in paragraph No.12 of the impugned judgment, which reveals that there is no violation of principles of natural justice by the Enquiry Officer (DW-
2) by putting questions to appellant to obtain answers for proper understanding of the case. In the considered view of this Court, no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal and the concurrent findings returned by the courts below cannot be said to be perverse. Consequentially, this appeal and application are dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGE NOVEMBER 07, 2014 r