L.I.C. Of India & Anr vs Ram Pal Singh Bisen

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.893 OF 2007

L.I.C. OF INDIA & ANR. ....Appellants

Versus

RAM PAL SINGH BISEN ...Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Deepak Verma, J.

1.Ignorance is a bliss, especially in the vast field of

law, stands established from the narration of facts of

this appeal as would fully expose it. Against findings of

fact vide judgment and decree recorded by Additional

District Judge No.2, Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 93 of 1982

(10/80), decided on 28.5.1993, confirmed in S.B. First

appeal No. 178 of 1993 by learned Single Judge of the

High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jaipur and

further affirmed in Special Appeal (Civil) No. 42 of 1996

by Division Bench of the said Court, decided on

30.9.2005, unsuccessful appellants/ defendants are before

us, challenging the same on variety of grounds.

2.Needless to say the facts unfolded before us from the C.A. No.893 of 2007 2

record as well as during the course of hearing reveal a

sorry state of affairs as to the manner in which suit had

been contested in the trial court by the appellants

herein, abutting gross negligence and callous manner, not

even adhering to the provisions of the Code of Civil

Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act, yet challenging

the same before this Court, even after having lost from

all courts.

3.Thumb-nail sketch of the facts of the case are as

under:

4.Respondent herein original plaintiff was appointed by

the appellants/defendants on probation as a Development

officer on 5.4.1964. He was confirmed on the said post

on 1.4.1966. It is not in dispute that his service

conditions were regulated by Life Insurance Corporation

of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (hereinafter shall be

referred to as "Staff Regulations") framed in exercise

of powers conferred under clause (b) of sub-section (2)

of Section 49 of Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956

(hereinafter referred to as the "Act").

5.Charge sheet dated 16.4.1974 imputing six charges was

served on him. He was also placed under suspension.

Supplementary charge sheet was also served on him on

21.10.1974. Mr. R.S. Maheshwari was appointed as Inquiry C.A. No.893 of 2007 3

Officer, who after completion of inquiry proceedings

furnished his report to Disciplinary Authority on

29.01.1976. On the basis of this, respondent was served

with show-cause notice on 23.2.1976 stating inter-alia

that in view of the fact that some of the serious charges

stood proved against him, why order of dismissal from

service be not passed against him.

6.Respondent submitted his reply to the show cause notice

on 02.04.1976, pointing out irregularities committed

during the course of inquiry by the Inquiry Officer. His

categorical case in reply was that he has not been

given adequate, proper, reasonable and sufficient

opportunity of hearing during the domestic inquiry.

Therefore, the whole inquiry stood vitiated on the

principles of natural justice. It deserves to be quashed

and no action on such an inquiry report can be taken

against him.

7.However, without taking note of the submissions of the

respondent, appellants by non speaking order and further

without disclosing any opinion, on the basis of which

respondent was held guilty of charges levelled against

him, arrived at a conclusion for his dismissal from

service vide order dated 11.5.1976.

8.Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the respondent was C.A. No.893 of 2007 4

constrained to prefer a departmental appeal under

Regulation 40 of Staff Regulations but that too met the

fate of dismissal vide order dated 20.12.1976.

9.He then submitted further mercy appeal before the

Chairman of LIC but without any favourable result as the

same came to be dismissed on 12.10.1977.

10.Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed by

appellants herein, respondent as plaintiff was

constrained to file a suit, as an indigent person before

Additional District Judge No.2, Ajmer, for declaration

that the departmental inquiry proceedings culminating in

order of dismissal from service, the appellate order, and

further order passed by the Chairman of the appellant-

Corporation as null and void. Consequently, he be held

entitled for reinstatement in service with all

consequential benefits. The learned trial Judge was

pleased to grant permission to respondent-plaintiff to

contest the suit as an indigent person.

11.Appellants herein as defendants, filed written

statement, inter alia, denying that no proper or

sufficient opportunity was afforded to the respondent.

They further contended that despite grant of sufficient

opportunity, respondent took undue adjournments on

various earlier dates or had remained absent, and C.A. No.893 of 2007 5

thereafter deliberately remained absent from the inquiry

on 5.1.1976, thereby compelling the Inquiry Officer to

proceed ex-parte against him. Thus, even after grant of

several opportunities, he cannot legitimately contend

that inquiry was hit by the principles of natural

justice.

12.Thus, in general, they have denied averments of the

plaint in toto and submitted that the suit being mis-

conceived deserves to be dismissed with costs.

13.On the strength of the pleadings of the parties, trial

court was pleased to frame six issues. The main and

pertinent issue was with regard to the fact whether

action of the appellants resulting in respondent's

dismissal from service, rejection of appeal and further

representation, was in violation of the principles of

natural justice, if so, then to what reliefs respondent

was entitled to.

14.Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention

here that neither copy of Inquiry Report was made

available to respondent nor it was disclosed in the show

cause notice as to on what premise finding of guilt was

recorded by Inquiry Officer or by the Disciplinary

Authority while order of dismissal came to be passed

against him.

C.A. No.893 of 2007 6

15.To prove his averments in the suit, respondent-

plaintiff tendered himself in the witness box and proved

his case as also documents filed in support thereof.

Surprisingly enough, appellants herein did not lead any

oral evidence, yet some of the documents filed by

appellants were exhibited, probably under misconception

of law that they were not disputed in Court by

respondent. It is also necessary to mention here that

appellants had also not served any notice of admission or

denial of documents on the respondent during trial as

contemplated under Order XII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil

Procedure (for short,`CPC').

16.After appreciating the evidence available on record,

trial court was pleased to decide the issues in favour of

the respondent-plaintiff, holding therein that there was

complete violation of principles of natural justice

inasmuch as no reasonable, proper and sufficient

opportunity was afforded to him to defend himself in the

departmental enquiry. Similarly, the appellate order was

passed in a mechanical manner as also the order on

representation of the respondent by Chairman. In the

result, the Trial Court passed a decree in favour of

respondent, quashing and setting aside order of dismissal

from service with further direction to reinstate him C.A. No.893 of 2007 7

alongwith all consequential benefits including payment of

salary for the intervening period.

17.Against this judgment and decree pronounced by trial

court, appellants were constrained to file regular first

appeal before learned single judge of the High Court

which also came to be dismissed by him on 28.5.1993. Not

being satisfied with the same, appellants carried Special

Appeal before the Division Bench of the said High Court

which also came to be dismissed on 30.9.2005. Hence,

this appeal after grant of leave, by the defendants,

having lost from all the three courts.

18.We have accordingly heard Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Mr. K.

Ramamoorthy, learned Senior Counsel with Mrs. Indra

Sawhney, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms.

Chandan Ramamurthi, learned counsel for respondent and

have critically examined the records.

19.It is pertinent to mention here that even though oral

evidence lead by respondent plaintiff is not on record,

but on certified copy thereof, being supplied to us by

learned counsel for appellants, we have categorically

gone through the same. It may be mentioned herein that

in the same, there was not even a whisper of suggestion

made to the plaintiff that he had appeared in the office

on 5.1.1976 to collect his suspension allowance yet on C.A. No.893 of 2007 8

being informed by the inquiry officer, that his inquiry

too was fixed for the said date, therefore, he should

come to attend it, on which respondent had informed the

Inquiry Officer that he would appear, after some time

along with his witnesses. In other words, even the

defence that has been pleaded and set up by the

appellants in their written statement was not put forth

to the respondent, while he was in the witness box.

20.Thus, the question that arises for consideration is

whether in absence of any oral evidence having been

tendered by the appellants, and especially in absence of

putting their own defence to the respondent during his

cross examination in the Court, what is the effect of

documents filed by appellants and marked as Exhibits.

21.Despite our persistent requests made to the learned

counsel appearing for the appellants they have not been

able to show compliance of Order XII Rule 1 and 2 of the

CPC, meaning thereby that there has not been any

compliance thereof.

22.Order XII, Rules 1 and 2 appearing in the Code of

Civil Procedure reads as thus:

"ORDER XII

ADMISSIONS C.A. No.893 of 2007 9

1. Notice of admission of case. - Any party to a suit may give notice, by his pleading, or othewise in writing, that he admits the truth of the whole or any part of the case of any other party.

2. Notice to admit documents. - Either party may call upon the other party to admit, within seven days from the date of service of the notice any document, saving all just exceptions; and in case of refusal or neglect to admit, after such notice, the costs of proving any such document shall be paid by the party so neglecting or refusing, what- ever the result of the suit may be, unless the Court otherwise directs; and no costs of proving any document shall be allowed unless such notice is given, except where the omission to give the notice is, in the opinion of the Court, a saving of expense."

23.It is also necessary to mention here that Rule 2A of

Order XII of the CPC deals with the situation where

notice of admission as contemplated in Order XII Rule 2

of the CPC has been served but is not denied then the

same shall be deemed to have been admitted. Similarly,

Rule 3A of the aforesaid Order grants power to the Court

to admit any document in evidence, even if no notice has

been served. The aforesaid provisions of law have been

brought in the Code vide Amendment by Act No. 104 of

1976, w.e.f. 1.2.1977.

24.Records do not reveal that any such procedure was

adopted either by the appellants or by the Trial Court to

prove the documents filed by the appellants and mark them

as Exhibits. Thus, no advantage thereof could be accrued C.A. No.893 of 2007 10

to the appellants, even if it is assumed that said

documents have been admitted by respondent and were then

exhibited and marked.

25.No doubt, it is true that failure to prove the defence

does not amount to an admission, nor does it reverse or

discharge the burden of proof of the plaintiff but still

the duty cast on the defendants has to be discharged by

adducing oral evidence, which the appellants have

miserably failed to do. Appellants, even though a

defaulting party, committed breach and failed to carry

out a legislative imposition, then had still to convince

this Court as to what was the just cause for doing the

same. Thus looking to the matter from any angle, it is

fully established that appellants had miserably failed to

prove and establish their defence in the case.

26.We are of the firm opinion that mere admission of

document in evidence does not amount to its proof. In

other words, mere marking of exhibit on a document does

not dispense with its proof, which is required to be

done in accordance with law. As has been mentioned herein

above, despite perusal of the record, we have not been

able to come to know as to under what circumstances

respondent plaintiff had admitted those documents. Even

otherwise, his admission of those documents cannot carry C.A. No.893 of 2007 11

the case of the appellants any further and much to the

prejudice of the respondent.

27.It was the duty of the appellants to have proved

documents Exh. A-1 to Exh. A-10 in accordance with law.

Filing of the Inquiry Report or the evidence adduced

during the domestic enquiry would not partake the

character of admissible evidence in a court of law.

That documentary evidence was also required to be proved

by the appellants in accordance with the provisions of

the Evidence Act, which they have failed to do.

28.It is also worthwhile to mention here that one of the

complainant Rattan Lal who was examined as witness during

the departmental Inquiry was not cross-examined by

respondent as he was not afforded proper opportunity in

this regard.

29.Learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously

submitted before us that on 5.1.1976, respondent

deliberately, intentionally and with oblique motives

remained absent from the Departmental Inquiry proceedings

as on the same very day he had come to the office to

collect his dues, was then informed about the

proceedings fixed for the same day but he still remained

absent. The said order sheet is neither signed by the

respondent nor was this defence put up to him when he was C.A. No.893 of 2007 12

in the witness box in cross-examination.

30.From the narration of aforesaid facts and law, we are

of the considered opinion that the courts have committed

no error in coming to the conclusion that respondent was

denied opportunity of hearing, that being so, whole

proceedings stand vitiated by non-adherence to the

principles of natural justice.

31.Under the Law of Evidence also, it is necessary that

contents of documents are required to be proved either by

primary or by secondary evidence. At the most, admission

of documents may amount to admission of contents but not

its truth. Documents having not been produced and marked

as required under the Evidence Act cannot be relied upon

by the Court. Contents of the document cannot be proved

by merely filing in a court.

32.Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. P.S. Patwalia

in his usual, polite yet firm vehemence contended that

looking to the serious allegations levelled against him,

the order of the Trial Court directing reinstatement with

full back wages, which stood confirmed by Appellate

Courts, would amount to rewarding a dishonest officer.

But looking to the manner in which the case was conducted

in the Trial Court, nothing can be done to grant any

relief to the appellants. Respondent has been able to C.A. No.893 of 2007 13

successfully prove that there was denial of opportunity

to him in the Departmental Enquiry. In this view of the

matter, all subsequent actions taken thereto, would

automatically fail.

33.In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that

the courts below committed no error in decreeing the suit

of the respondent.

34.It may further be noted that respondent has now

retired in the year 2000, after having attained age of

superannuation. Thus, the question of his re-

instatement does not arise. It could only be a case of

some monetary benefit to him. In view of his

superannuation, it will neither be fit nor proper to

direct a fresh inquiry to be conducted against him.

35.Thus, the appeal being devoid of any merit and

substance is dismissed. Appellants to bear the cost of

the litigation throughout.

36. Counsel's fee Rs.10,000/-.

......................J. [B.SUDERSHAN REDDY]

......................J. [DEEPAK VERMA]

March 16, 2010, C.A. No.893 of 2007 14

New Delhi.