P.D. Sharma, J:-

(29th September, 1965)-A.N. Chopra, petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of his removal from service passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs. Government of India, on 17th May, 1962, on the allegations, as follows; -

The petitioner at the time of his removal from service was Class I Section Officer in the Ministry of Transport and Communications a post which he held in substantive capacity since 1954. He was suspended from service by an order dated 7th November, 1956, in connection with an inquiry in a criminal case registered against him and others including his son R.N. Chopra and P.R. Malhotra (Annexure A). He was served with a charge-sheet together with a statement of the allegations on 18 April, 1958 (Annexures C and D). The charge was in the following terms :

"That the said Mr. A.N. Chopra, while functioning as Section Officer in the Ministry of Transport during the period from September 1955 to May 1956 committed misconduct as a public servant in as much as he engaged himself in a criminal conspiracy with his son Mr. R.N. Chopra and others with the object of obtaining import licences from the office of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi in the name of certain bogus concerns on the basis of false and forged documents by providing his son, Mr. R.N. Chopra with funds for achieving the object of the conspiracy, by forging documents and doing other illegal acts intended to advance the object of the conspiracy.

" The petitioner in order to successfully defend himself in his letter dated 22nd April, 1958 (Annexure E) to the Secretary, Ministry of Transport and Communications, requested that amongst others the following documents might be supplied to him:

“(ix) Copy of the report of preliminary inquiry made by the police.

(x) Copies of full statements made by all the witnesses before the police in the inquiry made by them on which the allegations against me have been based.

(xi) The report of the Examiner of Questioned Documents on the various signatures sent to him for his technical advice together with the photostats and enlargements made by him particularly regarding the signatures "Yog Raj" and "S. Chandar."

2. The Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, in his memorandum dated 22nd May, 1958 (Annexure F informed the petitioner that the documents mentioned at items (1) to (7) and (11) in paragraph 4 of his representation (Annexure E) could be inspected by him in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Kotah House Hutments, New Delhi, from 23rd May to 29th May, 1958, during office hours. It was specifically mentioned therein that the police statements of witnesses and report of the investigating officer could not be allowed to be inspected by him. The Petitioner in his letter dated 17th June, 1958 (Annexure G) requested inter alia that photostat copies of the alleged forgeries committed by him and his son relating to the signature of Yog Raj and S. Chandar be copied to him so that he could get those examined by a qualified examiner of questioned documents to enable him to substantiate his position. The Union of India respondent No. 1, in spite of his repeated requests refused to supply the above photostat copies and the documents mentioned at serial numbers 9 and 10 in paragraph No. 4 of his letter (Arnexure E). Instead he was supplied with a summary of the state­ments which Prithvi Raj Malhotra, Kundan Lal, a postal clerk and Kirpa Ram Malhotra witnesses were likely to make at the inquiry stage. The petitioner in-spite of the obstacles placed in his way by the Depart­ment concerned submitted his written statement on 27th October, 1958.

3. Mr. G.C.L. Joneja, Deputy Secretary, was appointed as the Inquiry Officer to conduct inquiry against the petitioner as provided under Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. It was a joint inquiry against the petitioner, M. L. Bedi, an upper division clerk in the Ministry of Commerce, Balbir Handa, a stenographer in the office of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports and Shiv Nath, A.P.M. Accounts, General Post Office, New Delhi. T.R. Acharya, Inspector of Police, conducted the proceedings on behalf of the prosecution before the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner sought permission of the appropriate authority to engage a legal practitioner to defend him in the interest of justice but his request was turned down (Annexure N) he further requested the Inquiry Officer to allow him to bring an indepen­dent expert so that he could adequately cross-examine the Government Handwriting Expert but this innocent request also was refused.

4. The Inquiry Officer in his report held that alleged forging of signatures of Yog Raj and the alleged receipt of Rs. 1,300 from P.R. Malhotra in respect of the sale of the licence at Bombay by the petitioner were not proved. The Disciplinary Authority over ruled the Inquiry Officer's report and held both these facts as established against the peti­tioner. The Union Public Service Commission in turn approved the findings against him on four charges but not in respect of the receipt of Rs. 1,300. The President of India by the memorandum dated 19th October, 1959, served the petitioner with a notice to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service. The petitioner in due course submitted his reply which was ignored and he was removed by Notifica­tion dated 17th May, 1962. His representation appeal to the President of India under Rule 32 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules brought no relief to him. The main ground urged by him while assailing the impugned order of his removal from service was that he had been denied a reasonable opportunity under Article 311 of the Constitution and the procedure followed by the Inquiry Officer was repug­nant to the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and natural justice and in support thereof he referred to the follow­ing circumstances:-

"(i) Denial of copies of the statements made by the witnesses to the police which were vitally important for the purpose of cross-examination.

(ii) Denial of vitally important documents which would have completely discredited the admitted accomplice Prithvi Raj Malhotra.

(iii) Denial of an opportunity of taking photographs or securing photostat copies of the forgeries alleged to have been committed by the petitioner.

(iv) Denial of the services of a lawyer and, above all, of a handwriting expert to assist, in the cross-examination of the Govern­ment handwriting expert."

The other grounds mentioned by him in support of his prayer were not pressed before me at the time of arguments and 'so the same are not being noticed here.

5 The respondents in paragraph 9 of their written statement admitted that the inquiry was joint against the petitioner and three other delinquent Government Servants, that 128 witnesses were cited but only 31 out of them were examined by the Inquiry Officer and out of these 31 only 7 concerned the charge against the petitioner. Summary of three out of these seven witnesses was supplied to the petitioner before he filed his written reply to the charge sheet on 27th October, 1958. The summary of the statements of the remaining four witnesses could not be supplied as they had not been examined by the police during the investigation stage. They admitted that copies of statements of all the witnesses recorded by the police at the investigation stage were not supplied to the petitioner and that he was also not allowed to have photostat copies of the disputed signatures of Yog Raj and S. Chader. It was also admitted that the petitioner was not given permission to engage a lawyer for himself or to have the assistance of a qualified handwriting expert to cross-examine the Government handwriting expert when he appeared in the witness box in regard to the genuine or otherwise nature of the signatures of Yog Raj and S. Chander. This they thought was not permissible under Rule 15(3) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules.

6. There is thus no doubt that the Inquiry Officer conducted joint inquiry against the petitioner and three other Government servants, that 128 witnesses were cited but not all of them were examined by the Inquiry Officer and that the petitioner was not supplied with copies of the state­ments made by these witnesses before the investigating officer. What seems to have been done was that summary of the statements of three or four such witnesses which they were likely to make before the Inquiry Officer was furnished to him. Even in their case copies of their full statements before the Investigating Officer were not supplied to the petitioner. The charge against the accused-petitioner as reproduced by me earlier was that he committed misconduct as a public servant in as much as he had engaged himself in a criminal conspiracy with his son R. N. Chopra and others. Therefore, for the Department to plead that the statements of the witnesses before the investigating officer depicting the part played by the other three delinquent Government servants in the illeged misconduct did not concern the petitioner was not justifiable. The charge was of conspiracy and, therefore, the part played by each of the four delinquent Government servants was relevant for considering the misconduct of all of them. In my opinion the Department should have furnished the petitioner with copies of the statements of all the witnesses examined at the investigation stage to enable him to have a full grasp of the case he was likely to meet and to effectively cross-examine the witnesses actually produced before the Inquiry Officer. The failure to do so by the Department amounted to denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to show the cause as to why he should not be removed from service. In this connection reference may be made to the case Trilok Nath v. The Union of India and others, (Civil Appeal No. 322 of 1957) decided by the Supreme Court on 1st November, 1960, wherein amongst other things it was also laid down :

"Therefore, in our view, the failure of the Inquiry Officer to furnish the appellant with copies of the documents such as the first information report and the statements recorded at the Shidipura house and during the investigation must be held to have caused prejudice to the appellant in making his defence at the inquiry. The inquiry held must, in these circumstances, be regarded as one in violation not only of Rule 55 but also of Article 311(2)."

7. It is common ground that the petitioner was not supplied with copy of the first information report in the case and further he was not given photostat copies of the two alleged forged signatures of Yog Raj and S. Chandar. The learned Counsel for the respondents was not correct in saying that the opinion of the Government handwriting expert on the genuine or otherwise nature of these two signatures did not go against the petitioner. The petitioner was fully justified in asking for photostate copies of these disputed signatures at the proper time so that he would have consulted handwriting experts to know the correct state of affairs. Further, he should have been allowed to engage a Counsel or to have the assistance of a handwriting expert to cross-examine the Government handwriting expert because for obvious reason a layman could not have effectively cross-examined such an expert. These circumstances further show that the petitioner had not been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against his removal from service.

8. Keeping in view the admitted facts of the case and the Rule of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Tirlok Nath's case, the order of removal of the petitioner from service by the respondents cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly the said order is quashed. The costs of these proceedings shall be borne by the respondents.

Petition allowed.