Nayudu, J.:— The only point that has been urged before us by Dr. Medhi in this civil rule is that whatever may have happened during the stage of enquiry and the passing of the order of punishment by the Superintendent of Police, the petitioner was entitled to a right of appeal under the rules to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, and that he having preferred an appeal was entitled to be heard in support thereof before an order against him was made in the appeal.
2. We feel that there is considerable force in this contention. The act of punishing a public servant by the competent authority, although is in the nature of an administrative act nevertheless involves the exercise of judgment. The proceedings. In our opinion, would assume, therefore, the character of a quasi judicial proceeding and the necessity for taking an objective view of the matter would be involved. Similarly, the power of an appellate authority involves the exercise of a judgment as to the correctness or otherwise of the action taken, which is made the subject-matter of the appeal. The appellate-authority for the same reason fulfils and performs in the disposal of the appeal quasi-judicial functions. This position has been made clear by the Supreme Court in more than one decision.
3. Their Lordships have held that where a statutory right of appeal is given to an authority, that authority in disposing of the appeal must be deemed to be acting judicially. In any event, their functions partake of the character of quasi judicial functions and necessarily must conform to the minimum standards that should obtain in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, and this includes the Important right and privilege to the appellant to be heard in support of his appeal, before his appeal is finally rejected.
4. This also follows from the fact that the rejection of the appeal involves a confirmation of the punitive action taken against the appellant and a final disposal of his rights in the matter.
5. It is not disputed in the instant case that no audience had been given to the present petitioner before his appeal was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. Mr. Pathak, the learned Government Advocate, invited our attention to the amended Rule 66 of the Assam Police Manual, Third Volume, which required that whenever an appeal is preferred of the kind with which we are concerned in this case, the appeal should contain all the points relied on as well as the arguments in support of those points. From this Mr. Pathak contended that as the arguments are already there in the appeal petition, the petitioner would gain nothing by being given an opportunity to be heard in support of the appeal. Mr. Pathak further pointed out that the petitioner did not make any request for personal hearing. It is true that the rule provides for the giving of the arguments Which the appellant relied on in support of his appeal in the appeal petition itself, but that does not by itself involve the exclusion of the ordinary right of an appellant to be heard in support of his appeal.
6. It is possible that the arguments may be given and the appellant may feel that there is more to say in support of the appeal and it is not a strange feature in judicial proceeding that arguments are heard notwithstanding the fact that written arguments had already been supplied.
7. There would appear to be nothing in the rule which requires an appellant to demand a personal hearing as an additional feature, in his appeal. It would have been a different matter if some such provision had been there in the rules. There being no such restriction, the normal right of an appellant to be heard in support of his appeal, before the same is rejected, should prevail. Hence we are satisfied that as the appellant had not been given an opportunity to be heard in support of his appeal, this opportunity should now be extended to him in the interests of justice.
8. We would, therefore, set aside the order of the appellate authority rejecting the appeal, and direct that authority to take the appeal back to the file, and to proceed to hear and dispose of the same after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to present his arguments in support of his appeal.
9. The petition is accordingly allowed; but, in the entire circumstances of the case, we do not propose to make any order as to costs.
GG/M/D.V.C
10. Petition allowed.
Comments