Wp 968 Of 2008.Odt v. Wp 968 Of 2008.Odt

WP 968 of 2008.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.968/2008 J U D G M E N T: (PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.) 10 1. Heard Mrs. Mugdha Chandurkar, learned counsel forthe petitioners and Mr. Anubhav Mardikar, learned counsel for therespondent no.1. 2. The petition challenges the judgment of the learned5Central Administrative Tribunal (“CAT” for short hereinafter)dated 04/12/2006, whereby the Original ApplicationNo.2071/2004 filed by the original respondent against the orderof the Disciplinary Authority dated 17/01/2000, dismissing himfrom service; the order dated 13/10/2003 of the AppellateAuthority, confirming the said punishment by rejecting his appealand the memo dated 17/09/1998 by the AdditionalCommissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Nagpur proposing to holdan enquiry against him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [“CCS(CCA)Rules, 1965” hereinafter for short) has been allowed and thetermination of the original respondent has been set aside.However, since the original respondent had already expired, thereinstatement was not directed but the other benefits likecomputation of pension, family pension and other pensionary 10 15 20 benefits have been directed to be paid to his legal heirs, thepresent respondent no.1. 3. It is necessary to note that the CAT had allowed theoriginal application on two grounds: (i) that the enquiry initiatedagainst the original respondent stood vitiated on account of non-supply of the documents filed along with the chargesheet and (ii)that material extraneous to the enquiry namely letter dated31/08/1999 by Mr. D.P. Shrivastava was considered by theEnquiry Officer, which did not form part and parcel of the enquiryproceedings. On account of both these grounds the enquiry hasbeen held to have been vitiated. 4. Mrs. Mugdha Chandurkar, learned counsel for thepetitioners while assailing the impugned judgment of the learnedCAT contends that the finding rendered that the enquiry stoodvitiated, is not sustainable in law, for the reason that thedocuments were supplied, maybe later in point of time on10/08/1999, which, according to her, is reflected from theordersheet of the said date (page 97). Relying upon the languageof Rule 14 (4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, it is contended that 5 10 15 20 the requirement of the Rules was only to supply a list ofdocuments and witnesses, and since there is no dispute that a listof documents was indeed supplied and no demand was made forsupply of the documents included in the list, the provisions ofRule 14 (4) of the CCS (CCA ) Rules, 1965 stood complied with.Since the aforesaid Rules, according to learned counsel, do notrequire the documents to be supplied, non-supply of the same, orfor that matter, delay in supplying of the same, would not resultin vitiating the enquiry, nor causing any prejudice to the originalrespondent and the enquiry conducted, in that view of the matterwas legal and proper. It is also contended that even otherwise aninspection of the documents on record was granted to the originalrespondent, which position is not disputed and that would sufficethe requirement of Rule 14 (4) of the aforesaid Rules. She placesreliance upon State Bank of Patiala and others Vs. S. K. Sharma(1996) 3, SCC 364; Narendra Nath Bhalla Vs. State of UttarPradesh and others (2007) 15 SCC 775; State Bank of India andothers Vs. Bidyut Kumar Mitra and others (2011) 2 SCC 316;State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Rajit Singh 2022 SCCOnLine SC 341 and Chairman, State Bank of India and anotherVs. M J. James (2022) 2 SCC 301, in support of her contentions. 5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20 5. Insofar as the finding that the enquiry stood vitiatedon account of extraneous material being considered by theEnquiry Officer, she contends that the finding in this regard isequally unsustainable in law, for the reason that the originalrespondent was well aware of the said communication andtherefore could not claim ignorance of the same or that it was anextraneous material. It is, therefore, contended that the judgmentof the CAT is liable to be quashed and set aside and the findingsrendered in the enquiry and the punishment of terminationimposed was clearly justified. 6. Mr. Anubhav Mardikar, learned counsel for theoriginal respondent supports the impugned judgment andcontends that supply of the entire documents relied upon in thechargesheet is a sine-qua-non, failure of which would vitiate theentire enquiry on account of denial of a reasonable opportunity tomeet the case claimed to have existed against the originalrespondent and would also be in violation of the principles ofnatural justice. It is also contended that the conduct of enquirywould not permit any extraneous material to be considered suchas the communication between Mr. Shrivastava, which was given 5 10 15 20 to the original respondent by the Presenting Officer, along withthe prosecution brief, which was never taken on record during theenquiry proceedings, as a result of which, the right of the originalrespondent to deny the contents of the letter dated 31/08/1999of Mr. Shrivastava was clearly thwarted, resulting in vitiation ofthe enquiry. Learned counsel places reliance upon State of UttarPradesh and others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010) 2 SCC 772;Union of India and others Vs. B.V. Gopinath (2014) 1 SCC 351;Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and another Vs. MadanlalTandon AIR 2015 SC 2876, in support of his contentions. 5 10 7. The entire case depends upon the language ofRule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which is the procedure bywhich the enquiry for imposing major penalties has to beconducted. For the sake of ready reference Rule 14 of the CCS15(CCA) Rules, 1965 is reproduced as under: “14. Procedure for imposing major penalties. - (1) No orderimposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix)of Rule 11 shall be made except after an inquiry held, as faras may be, in the manner provided by the Public Servants(Inquiries) Act, 1850 (37 of 1850), where such inquiry isheld under that Act. 20 (2) Whenever the disciplinary authority is of theopinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truthof any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against aGovernment Servant, it may itself inquire into, or appointunder this rule or under the provisions of the PublicServants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, as the case may be, anauthority to inquire into the truth thereof. Provided that where there is a complaint of sexualharassment within the meaning of Rule 3-C of the CentralCivil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, the ComplaintsCommittee established in each Ministry or Department orOffice for inquiring into such complaints, shall be deemedto be the Inquiring Authority appointed by the DisciplinaryAuthority for the purpose of these rules and the ComplaintsCommittee shall hold, if separate procedure has not beenprescribed for the Complaints Committee for holding theinquiry into the complaints of sexual harassments, theinquiry as far as practicable in accordance with theprocedure laid down in these rules. Provided that where there is a complaint of sexualharassment within the meaning of Rule 3-C of the CentralCivil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, the ComplaintsCommittee established in each Ministry or Department orOffice for inquiring into such complaints, shall be deemedto be the Inquiring Authority appointed by the DisciplinaryAuthority for the purpose of these rules and the ComplaintsCommittee shall hold, if separate procedure has not beenprescribed for the Complaints Committee for holding theinquiry into the complaints of sexual harassments, theinquiry as far as practicable in accordance with theprocedure laid down in these rules. Explanation. - Where the disciplinary authority itselfholds the inquiry, any reference in sub-rule (7) to sub-rule(20) and in sub-rule (22) to the inquiring authority shall beconstrued as a reference to the disciplinary authority.(3) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against aGovernment Servant under this Rule and Rule 15, thedisciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to be drawnup-(i) the substance of the imputations of misconduct ormisbehaviour into definite and distinct articles ofcharge;(ii) a statement of the imputations of misconduct ormis-behaviour in support of each article of charge,which shall contain-(a) a statement of all relevant facts including anyadmission or confession made by the Governmentservant;(b) a list of documents by which, and a list ofwitnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposedto be sustained.(4) The disciplinary authority shall deliver or cause tobe delivered to the Government Servant a copy of thearticles of charge, the statement of the imputations of 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 misconduct or misbehaviour and a list of documents andwitnesses by which each article of charge is proposed to besustained and shall require the Government Servant tosubmit, within such time as may be specified, a writtenstatement of his defence and state whether he desires to beheard in person. (5) (a) On receipt of the written statement of defence,the disciplinary authority may itself inquire into such of thearticles of charge as are not admitted, or, if it considers ifnecessary so to do, appoint, under sub-rule (2), aninquiring authority for the purpose, and where all thearticles of charge have been admitted by the GovernmentServant in his written statement of defence, the disciplinaryauthority shall record its findings on each charge aftertaking such evidence as it may think fit and shall act in themanner laid down in Rule 15. (b) If no written statement of defence is submitted bythe Government Servant the disciplinary authority may,itself, inquire into the articles of charge, or may, if itconsiders it necessary to do so, appoint under sub-rule (2)an inquiring authority for the purpose. (c) Where the disciplinary authority itself inquires intoany article of charge or appoints an inquiring authority forholding an inquiry into such charge, it may, by an order,appoint a Government Servant or a legal practitioner, to beknown as the "Presenting Officer" to present on its behalfthe case in support of the articles of charge. (6) The disciplinary authority shall, where it is not theinquiring authority, forward to the inquiring authority- (i) a copy of the articles of charge and the statementof the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour; (ii) a copy of the written statement of the defence, ifany, submitted by the Government Servant; (iii) a copy of the statements of witness, if any,referred to in sub-rule (3); (iv) evidence proving the delivery of the documentsreferred to in sub-rule (3) to the Government Servant; and (v) a copy of the order appointing the "PresentingOfficer".(7) The Government Servant shall appear in personbefore the inquiring authority on such day and at such time 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 (6) The disciplinary authority shall, where it is not theinquiring authority, forward to the inquiring authority- (i) a copy of the articles of charge and the statementof the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour; (ii) a copy of the written statement of the defence, ifany, submitted by the Government Servant; (iii) a copy of the statements of witness, if any,referred to in sub-rule (3); (iv) evidence proving the delivery of the documentsreferred to in sub-rule (3) to the Government Servant; and (v) a copy of the order appointing the "PresentingOfficer".(7) The Government Servant shall appear in personbefore the inquiring authority on such day and at such time 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 within ten working days from the date of receipt by theinquiring authority of the articles of charge and thestatement of the imputations of misconduct ormisbehaviour, as the inquiring authority may, by notice inwriting, specify, in this behalf, or within such further time,not exceeding ten days, as the inquiring authority mayallow. (8)(a) The Government Servant may take theassistance of any other Government Servant posted in anyoffice either at his headquarters or at the place where theinquiry is held, to present the case on his behalf, but maynot engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless thePresenting Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority isa legal practitioner, or, the disciplinary authority, havingregard to the circumstances of the case, so permits ; Provided that the Government Servant may take theassistance of any other Government Servant posted at anyother station, if the inquiring authority having regard to thecircumstances of the case and for reasons to be recorded inwriting so permits. Note : The Government Servant shall not take theassistance of any other Government Servant who has twopending disciplinary cases on hand in which he has to giveassistance. (b) The Government Servant may also take theassistance of a retired Government Servant to present thecase on his behalf, subject to such conditions as may bespecified by the President from time to time by general orspecial order in this behalf. (9) If the Government Servant who has not admittedany of the articles of charge in his written statement ofdefence or has not submitted any written statement ofdefence, appears before the inquiring authority, suchauthority shall ask him whether he is guilty or has anydefence to make and if he pleads guilty to any of thearticles of charge, the inquiring authority shall record theplea, sign the record and obtain the signature of theGovernment Servant thereon. (10) The inquiring authority shall return a finding ofguilt in respect of those articles of charge to which theGovernment Servant pleads guilty. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 (11) The inquiring authority shall, if the GovernmentServant fails to appear within the specified time or refusesor omits to plead, require the Presenting Officer to producethe evidence by which he proposes to prove the articles ofcharge, and shall, adjourn the case to a later date notexceeding thirty days, after recording an order that theGovernment Servant may, for the purpose of preparing hisdefence : (i) inspect within five days of the order or within suchfurther time not exceeding five days as the inquiringauthority may allow, the documents specified in the listreferred to in sub-rule (3); (ii) submit a list of witnesses to be examined on his behalf; Note.- If the Government Servant applies orally or inwriting for the supply of copies of the statements ofwitnesses mentioned in the list referred to in sub-rule (3),the inquiring authority shall furnish him with such copiesas early as possible and in any case not later than threedays before the commencement of the examination of thewitnesses on behalf of the disciplinary authority. (i) inspect within five days of the order or within suchfurther time not exceeding five days as the inquiringauthority may allow, the documents specified in the listreferred to in sub-rule (3); (ii) submit a list of witnesses to be examined on his behalf; Note.- If the Government Servant applies orally or inwriting for the supply of copies of the statements ofwitnesses mentioned in the list referred to in sub-rule (3),the inquiring authority shall furnish him with such copiesas early as possible and in any case not later than threedays before the commencement of the examination of thewitnesses on behalf of the disciplinary authority. (iii) give a notice within ten days of the order orwithin such further time not exceeding ten days as theinquiring authority may allow, for the discovery orproduction of any documents which are, in the possessionof Government but not mentioned in the list referred to insub-rule (3). Note.- The Government servant shall indicate therelevance of the documents required by him to bediscovered or produced by the Government. (12) The inquiring authority, shall, on receipt of thenotice for the discovery or production of documents,forward the same or copies thereof to the authority inwhose custody or possession the documents are kept, witha requisition for the production of the documents by suchdate as may be specified in such requisition : Provided that the inquiring authority may, for reasonsto be recorded by it in writing, refuse to requisition such ofthe documents as are, in its opinion, not relevant to thecase. (13) On receipt of the requisition referred to in sub-rule (12), every authority having the custody or possession 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 of the requisitioned documents shall produce the samebefore the inquiring authority : Provided that if the authority having the custody orpossession of the requisitioned documents is satisfied forreasons to be recorded by it in writing that the productionof all or any of such documents would be against the publicinterest or security of the State, it shall inform the inquiringauthority accordingly and the inquiring authority shall, onbeing so informed, communicate the information to theGovernment Servant and withdraw the requisition made byit for the production or discovery of such documents. (14) On the date fixed for the inquiry, the oral anddocumentary evidence by which the articles of charge areproposed to be proved shall be produced by or on behalf ofthe disciplinary authority. The witnesses shall be examinedby or on behalf of the Presenting Officer and may be cross-examined by or on behalf of the Government Servant. ThePresenting Officer shall be entitled to re-examine thewitnesses on any points on which they have been cross-examined, but not on any new matter, without the leave ofthe inquiring authority. The inquiring authority may alsoput such questions to the witnesses as it thinks fit. (15) If it shall appear necessary before the close of thecase on behalf of the disciplinary authority, the inquiringauthority may, in its discretion, allow the Presenting Officerto produce evidence not included in the list given to theGovernment Servant or may itself call for new evidence orrecall and re-examine any witness and in such case theGovernment Servant shall be entitled to have, if hedemands it, a copy of the list of further evidence proposedto be produced and an adjournment of the inquiry for threeclear days before the production of such new evidence,exclusive of the day of adjournment and the day to whichthe inquiry is adjourned. The inquiring authority shall givethe Government Servant an opportunity of inspecting suchdocuments before they are taken on the record. Theinquiring authority may also allow the Government Servantto produce new evidence, if it is of the opinion that theproduction of such evidence is necessary, in the interests ofjustice. Note.- New evidence shall not be permitted or calledfor or any witness shall not be recalled to fill up any gap in 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 the evidence. Such evidence may be called for only whenthere is an inherent lacuna or defect in the evidence whichhas been produced originally. (16) When the case for the disciplinary authority isclosed, the Government Servant shall be required to statehis defence, orally or in writing, as he may prefer. If thedefence is made orally, it shall be recorded and theGovernment Servant shall be required to sign the record. Ineither case, a copy of the statement of defence shall begiven to the Presenting Officer, if any, appointed. (17) The evidence on behalf of the GovernmentServant shall then be produced. The Government Servantmay examine himself in his own behalf if he so prefers. Thewitnesses produced by the Government Servant shall thenbe examined and shall be liable to cross-examination, re-examination and examination by the inquiring authorityaccording to the provisions applicable to the witnesses forthe disciplinary authority. (18) The inquiring authority may, after theGovernment Servant closes his case, and shall, if theGovernment Servant has not examined himself, generallyquestion him on the circumstances appearing against himin the evidence for the purpose of enabling the GovernmentServant to explain any circumstances appearing in theevidence against him. (19) The inquiring authority may, after the completionof the production of evidence, hear the Presenting Officer, ifany, appointed, and the Government Servant, or permitthem to file written briefs of their respective case, if they sodesire. (20) If the Government Servant to whom a copy of thearticles of charge has been delivered, does not submit thewritten statement of defence on or before the date specifiedfor the purpose or does not appear in person before theinquiring authority or otherwise fails or refuses to complywith the provisions of this rule, the inquiring authority mayhold the inquiry ex parte. (21)(a) Where a disciplinary authority competent toimpose any of the penalties specified in clause (i) to (iv) ofRule 11 (but not competent to impose any of the penaltiesspecified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11), has itselfinquired into or caused to be inquired into the articles of 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 any charge and that authority, having regard to its ownfindings or having regard to its decision on any of thefindings of any inquiring authority appointed by it, is of theopinion that the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) ofRule 11 should be imposed on the Government Servant,that authority shall forward the records of the inquiry tosuch disciplinary authority as is competent to impose thelast mentioned penalties. (b) The disciplinary authority to which the records areso forwarded may act on the evidence on the record or may,if it is of the opinion that further examination of any of thewitnesses is necessary in the interests of justice, recall thewitness and examine and cross-examine and re-examine the“witness” and may impose on the Government Servant suchpenalty as it may deem fit in accordance with these rules. (22) Whenever any inquiring authority, after havingheard and recorded the whole or any part of the evidencein an inquiry ceases to exercise jurisdiction therein, and issucceeded by another inquiring authority which has, andwhich exercises, such jurisdiction, the inquiring authority sosucceeding, may act on the evidence so recorded by itspredecessor, or partly recorded by its predecessor andpartly recorded by itself: Provided that if the succeeding inquiring authority isof the opinion that further examination of any of thewitnesses whose evidence has already been recorded isnecessary in the interests of justice, it may recall, examine,cross-examine and re-examine any such witnesses ashereinbefore provided. (23)(i) After the conclusion of the inquiry, a reportshall be prepared and it shall contain- Provided that if the succeeding inquiring authority isof the opinion that further examination of any of thewitnesses whose evidence has already been recorded isnecessary in the interests of justice, it may recall, examine,cross-examine and re-examine any such witnesses ashereinbefore provided. (23)(i) After the conclusion of the inquiry, a reportshall be prepared and it shall contain- (a) the articles of charge and the statement of theimputations of misconduct or misbehaviour; (b) the defence of the Government servant in respectof each article of charge; (c) an assessment of the evidence in respect of eacharticle of charge; (d) the findings on each article of charge and thereasons therefor.-Explanation.If in the opinion of the inquiringauthority the proceedings of the inquiry establish any 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 article of charge different from the original articles of thecharge, it may record its findings on such article of charge: Provided that the findings on such article of chargeshall not be recorded unless the Government Servant haseither admitted the facts on which such article of charge isbased or has had a reasonable opportunity of defendinghimself against such article of charge. (ii) The inquiring authority, where it is not itself thedisciplinary authority, shall forward to the disciplinaryauthority the records of inquiry which shall include :- 5 10 (a) the report prepared by it under clause (i);(b) the written statement of defence, if any, submittedby the Government servant;(c) the oral and documentary evidence produced in15the course of the inquiry; (d) written briefs, if any, filed by the Presenting Officeror the Government Servant or both during the course of theinquiry; and(e) the orders, if any, made by the disciplinaryauthority and the inquiring authority in regard to theinquiry.” 20 8. A perusal of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 would indicate that Sub-Rule 3 requires that where it is proposedto hold an enquiry against a Government employee, theDisciplinary Authority shall draw or cause to be drawn up thesubstance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour intodefinite and distinct articles of charges which shall contain astatement of all relevant facts, including an admission orconfession made by the Government employee and a list ofdocuments by which and a list of witnesses by whom the articles 25 30 of charges are proposed to be sustained. Sub-Rule 4 requires thatthe articles of charges and the list of documents and witnesseshave to be delivered to the Government employee, consequent towhich, the Government employee is required to submit within thetime specified, the written statement of his defence and state5whether he desires to be heard in person. 9.The placement of these Sub-Rules in Rule 14 of theCCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 would indicate that the supply of thechargesheet and the list of documents and witnesses has to beprior in point of time, so as to enable the charged Governmentemployee to prepare and file his written statement. The questionis whether mere supply of the list of documents, alone, withoutthe documents, annexed thereto, would satisfy the requirement ofSub-Rule 4 of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA ) Rules, 1965. In otherwords, whether the principles of natural justice which require areasonable opportunity to be afforded to the charged Governmentemployee would stand satisfied by mere supply of the list ofdocuments, sans the documents themselves, to enable him toprepare an effective written statement/defence. 10 15 20 9.The placement of these Sub-Rules in Rule 14 of theCCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 would indicate that the supply of thechargesheet and the list of documents and witnesses has to beprior in point of time, so as to enable the charged Governmentemployee to prepare and file his written statement. The questionis whether mere supply of the list of documents, alone, withoutthe documents, annexed thereto, would satisfy the requirement ofSub-Rule 4 of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA ) Rules, 1965. In otherwords, whether the principles of natural justice which require areasonable opportunity to be afforded to the charged Governmentemployee would stand satisfied by mere supply of the list ofdocuments, sans the documents themselves, to enable him toprepare an effective written statement/defence. 10 15 20 10. The purpose of supply of the chargesheet, the list ofdocuments and the list of witnesses, is to enable the chargedGovernment employee to know what the charges, in thecontextual background of the documents, which claim not only tosupport but also to prove them, are, and to prepare an effectivedefence which would enable him to meet the charges. Meresupply of the list of documents without making available thedocuments on which the Disciplinary Authority seeks to rely uponto bring home the charges, in our considered opinion, would notsatisfy the object of affording a reasonable opportunity to thecharged Government employee to meet the charges by preparingan effective defence. The documents annexed with the list ofdocuments, to be filed with the chargesheet, in our consideredopinion, form an integral part of the chargesheet and thereforeSub-Rule 4 of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 will have tobe read, so as to mean as including the supply of the documentsthemselves to the charged Government employee, along with thelist of documents as contemplated therein, otherwise, the veryobject of supply of the chargesheet, in order to enable thecharged Government employee to prepare an effective defence,would stand frustrated. 5 10 15 20 17 11. The argument that the supply of the list ofdocuments, would satisfy the object of enabling the chargedGovernment employee to prepare an effective defence, is clearlymisconceived, for the reason that the articles of charges areframed on the basis of the documents, annexed to the list ofdocuments, and unless and until the documents annexed with thelist are perused, analysed and their import and effect understoodby the charged Government employee, he would not be in aposition to prepare an effective defence. Mere inspection of thesedocuments, in our considered opinion, also would not satisfy thepurpose and object of Sub-Rule 4 as that would also not beconsidered to be equivalent or effective as supplying thedocuments themselves. Inspection and supply of documents aretwo different and distinct things altogether. Whereas the supplyof the documents would enable the charged Governmentemployee to peruse, sift and analyze them, at his leisure, themere inspection of the documents, may not have the same effect,and therefore would not result in satisfying the object andpurpose of granting a reasonable opportunity to prepare aneffective defence, as is contemplated and mandatorily required bythe principles of natural justice. Sub-Rule 4; Sub-Rule 6 (iv); Sub- 5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20 Rule 11 (i) as well as Sub-Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965will, which merely provide for inspection, may then fall foul ofArticle 14 of the Constitution, as on the one hand the prosecutionhas full control and access to the documents annexed with the listof documents, as against which, the charged Governmentemployee is denied such equal access to them, thereby creatingan inequality. Sub-Rule 4; Sub-Rule 6 (iv); Sub-Rule 11 (i) as wellas Sub-Rule 15 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 in order to savethem, from the vice of inequality, therefore will have to be readdown to mean that the supply of the list of documents or theinspection as indicated therein would include the supply of thedocuments themselves, to the charged Government employee.Any other meaning put upon the language of the expression ‘listof documents’, as contained therein would not satisfy the purposeof affording a real and effective opportunity of defence to thecharged Government employee. 12. It is also material note that there are as many as 20documents included in the list of documents, which also wouldindicate that the mere inspection of these documents would notserve the purpose of affording a reasonable opportunity to the 5 10 15 20 charged Government employee in the matter of formulating aneffective defence in absence of the documents being supplied tohim, though it is not the volume which is material. It is alsonecessary to note that the requirement of supply of thedocuments, cannot be termed as a procedural requirement, butwould be a substantial requirement to be mandatorily followed,as the documents, themselves form the basis of the chargesagainst the charged Government employee, which he has to meetand without these documents being supplied, the chargedGovernment employee is deprived a right to a real, substantiveand effective defence. 13.StateBank of Patiala Vs. S. K. Sharma (supra) whilesummarizing the principles, which it has held not to beexhaustive, holds that in case of violation of a proceduralprovision, the complaint should be examined from the point ofview of prejudice. The judgment itself creates exceptions to this inrespect of cases falling under ‘no notice, no opportunity and nohearing categories’. As indicated above, the requirement ofproviding documents which form a part and parcel of thechargesheet cannot be termed to be a procedural requirementsummarizing the principles, which it has held not to beexhaustive, holds that in case of violation of a proceduralprovision, the complaint should be examined from the point ofview of prejudice. The judgment itself creates exceptions to this inrespect of cases falling under ‘no notice, no opportunity and nohearing categories’. As indicated above, the requirement ofproviding documents which form a part and parcel of thechargesheet cannot be termed to be a procedural requirement 5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20 and thus the present case would clearly be covered by theexceptions as indicated in para 33(3) therein and there cannot beany question of applying the test of prejudice. Narendra NathBhalla(supra) goes on a general proposition and does notconsider the language of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which wehave held to be a substantial requirement to be mandatorilyfollowed and thus is of no assistance. Bidyut Kumar Mitra (supra)also goes on the proposition that non supply of the document,was not shown to have caused any prejudice, whereas the presentcase, as indicated above, is covered by exceptions as indicated inpara 33(3) of StateBank of Patiala Vs. S. K. Sharma(supra),which was distinguished on facts. Rajit Singh (supra) in para 15and 16, itself holds that where it is found that the enquiry standsvitiated on account of violation of the principles of natural justice,the matter is to be remanded back for proceedings with theenquiry from the stage of violation of the principles of naturaljustice. M. J. James (supra) holds that violation of natural justicemust be tested on the principle whether observance of that rulewas necessary for just decision in the facts of that case. In theinstant case, we have already held that the requirement of supplyof the copies of the documents to the charged Government 5 10 15 20 employee was mandatory, considering which M. J. James (supra)is of no assistance to the learned counsel for the petitioners. 14. That takes us to the next contention that extraneousmaterial was considered by the Enquiry Officer in the conduct ofthe enquiry. The CAT has recorded that the letter dated31/08/1999, by Mr. Shrivastava, was not a part of the enquiryproceedings and consideration thereof vitiates the enquiry. Mrs.Chandurkar, learned counsel for the petitioners, does not disputethat this letter did not form part of the record but has tried tosupport the consideration of this communication on thecontention that the Charged Officer was aware of the same. Thiscannot, in our considered opinion, be a ground to considermaterial which was not a part of the record by the Enquiry Officerwhile conducting the enquiry and forming an opinion as to theguilt of the Charged Officer as any such consideration wouldclearly again amount to denial of an opportunity to the ChargedOfficer to effectively meet the allegations levelled against him,based upon what was contained in the said letter. The enquirytherefore has rightly held to have been vitiated on this count also. 5 10 15 20 15. In view of the above discussion, we do not see anyreason to interfere in the impugned judgment. The writ petition istherefore dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs. (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.) 5 10