7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
1/73
MohammedAzharuddin
..AppellantAndTheBoardofControlforCricketinIndiaThroughitsSecretary,havingitsofficeatBrabourneStatidum,FortArea,Mumbai,MaharashtraAndors
.Respondents.
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
2/73
1. Mohammed Azharuddin, the appellant herein, was highly reputed
cricketplayer.Itiswellknowntoallthecricketlovingpublicaswellasgeneral
public thatMohammed Azharuddin was an outstanding cricketer (player as
wellasCaptainofIndianTeam)whoheldanexcellentrecordinbothTestand
One-dayInternational(ODI)limitedoversgamecricketmatches.
2. Inandaround2000,therehadbeenmediareportsmakingallegationsof
underperformance,matchfixingbetting,acceptinggiftsetc.,againstseveral
CricketPlayersincludingforeignplayers.Takinginnumerablereportsthathad
come inbothprintandelectronicmediamaking allegationsasstatedsupra
againstseveralCricketplayers,thethenSecretary,MinistryofCulture,Youth
AffairsandSports,GovernmentofIndia,tookcognizanceofthosereportsand
askedtheCentralBureauof Investigation (for short theCBI) tocollectand
evaluatevariousnewsitemsandinformationsopublishedinthatregardand
thereafter,conductanenquiryintothoseallegationswhichwasdone.Onthe
requestoftheMinistryofCultureYouthAffairsandSportsUnionofIndia,the
BCCI (first respondent herein) thereafter initiated preliminary enquiry
appointing the second respondent as its Commissioner in regard thereto.
Ultimately, at the culmination of the enquiry and submitting report, The
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
3/73
BCCI/first respondent passed its order dated 05.12.2000, imposing
punishmentagainsttheappellant,whichinteraliareadstothefollowingeffect:
ORDER OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEEE OF BOARD OF
CONTROLFORCRICKETININIDAPASSEDATTHEMEETINGHELDON5THDECEMBER2000ATCHENNAI:
Mr.Mohd.Azharuddin:
TheCBIhassubmittedaReporttitledReportonCricketMatchFixing&RelatedMalPractices inOctober,2000.TheBoardofControl forCrikcetinIndia(BCCI)hadreferredthemattertoitsCommissioner,Mr.K.Madhavantomakeanappropriateenquiry.DuringMr.MadhavansfurtherenquiryhegaveopportunitiestoMr.Azharuddintogivehisexplanationstohimwhichhedidinthe form of a signed statement. Subsequently Mr.Madhavan submitted hisreport.
Mr.Mohd. Azharuddin was given a notice to appear before theDisciplinary Committee of the Board on 28.11.2000 at Hotel Taj Mahal,Mansingh Road, New Delhi. At the said hearing, on 28.11.2000,Mr.Azharuddinhadedoveraletterdt.28.11.2000addressedtotheChairmanoftheDisciplinaryCommittee.Dr.A.C.Muthaiah,thecontentsofthesaidletterisreproducedbelow:
Kindlyrefertoyourletterdated24.11.2000.IwishtosaythatIfully cooperated with the enquiry conducted by Shri Madhavan,commissioner appointed by the BCCI. He recorded my statement in
minute details. I had specifically denied the allegations about CricketMatchFixingandalliedmattersintheirtotality.Ihadnoconnectionwithanypersonoutsidethecricketfraternity.
Asfarasmyknowledgegoes,nocricketplayerindulgedinmatchfixing.
IamundergreatstrainbecauseinadditiontotheenquirybytheBCCI,separateenquiries/investigationsbytheIncomeTax,DirectorateofEnforcementhavebeenlaunchedagainstmewithoutanybasis.
I have served the BCCI and my country with distinction. I am
confident that having regard to my excellent and outstandingperformanceasacaptainandasaplayer,BCCIwoulddofulljusticetome.
The submissions made by Mr.Azharuddin as above was given dueconsideration. Itwasput toMr.Azharuddinwhether heisawarethat ifheisfound guilty in the proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee then an
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
4/73
appropriateactioncouldbetakenagainsthimforwhichhehadansweredintheaffirmative.
Thereafter, the proceedings were recorded and signed by all themembersoftheDisciplinaryCommitteeandalsobyMr.Azharuddinandpoint-3 of the proceedings of the Disciplinary Committee Meeting held on 28th
November2000isreproducedbelow:
Clause-3.Onbeingaskedwhetherhehadanythingfurthertoaddbyway ofexplanations regarding theallegations asmentioned in theaforesaidreports.,hestatedthathehadbroughtwithhimaletterdatedNovember 28,2000, addressed to the President, BCCI. He handed itovertotheCommittee.CopythereofisenclosedasAnnexuretotheseproceedings.Hestatedthathehadmentionedinthesaidletterwhathewants tosubmitbefore theCommittee andhas nothing further toaddexcept that he innocent he is hopeful that the Committee and BCCIwoulddofulljusticetohim.
TheDisciplinaryCommitteehascarefullyconsideredthe factsandthefindingsoftheReportoftheCommissionerarrivedatonaconsiderationoftheReport of the CBI as well as the statements/submissions made byMr.AzharuddibeforetheCommissionerandalsothestatements/submissionsmadebyhimatthehearingon28.11.2000beforetheDisciplinaryCommittee.TheCommissionersReporthas correctlydealtwith theseaspects and hasheldthattheexplanationsgivenbyMr.Azharuddinareunacceptabletohimforthereasonsgiveninhisreport.
TheDisciplinary Committee hasconsidered theentirematter and theexplanationsandtheoralsubmissionsmadebyMr.Azharuddinandareunable
to accept the same. After having given anxious consideration to the entirematter and on the basis of the statements/submissions made byMr.Azharuddin before the Disciplinary Committee, Report of theCommissionerwhichalsoconsidered theReport of theCBI, theDisciplinaryCommitteeisalsooftheopinionthatMr.AzharuddinisguiltyasfoundbytheCommissioner.
Afterduedeliberationandkeepinginmind theinterestofthe futureofthe IndianCricket, theMembersoftheDisciplinaryCommitteepresenthaveunanimouslytakenthedecisionasfollows:
i) He had close contacts and nexus with bookies/punters likeM.K.Gupta,AjayGupta,GyanGuptaandAmeeshGuptaetc.,andwasinvolvedinmatchfixing.
ii) Heisguiltyofunbecomingconductandmisconductasanationallevel player in maintaining such frequent contacts withbookies/punters.
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
5/73
iii) Inhiscase,themisconductisaggravated,ashewastheCaptainof the Indian Team for long and let down the country and thecricketlovingpublicinadespicablemanner.
The Disciplinary Committee is of the considered opinion thatMr.Azharuddinhasconductedhimselfinamannerwhichisprejudicialtothe
interestsofthegameofcricket,moreparticularlyasaCaptainoftheIndianTeam.
IntakingitsdecisiontheDisciplinaryCommitteehasalsokeptinmindthecontributionsmadebyMr.Azharuddintothegameofcricket.
Afterduedeliberationandkeeping inmind the interestof the futureofthe IndianCricket theMembers of theDisciplinaryCommitteepresent haveunanimouslytakenthedecisionasfollows:
Mr.Mohd. Azharuddin be debarred from playing any cricketmatchesconductedorauthorizedbyICC/BCCIoraffiliatedassociations
andalsodebarredfromholdinganypositioninICC/BCCIoranyofitsaffiliatedassociations,forlifecommencingfrom5 thDecember,2000.Hewillalsobenoteligible for anyBenefitMatchesallotted/conductedbythe BCCI or its affiliated members and BCCIs contribution to hisBenevolentFundaccruedasof today,willbeforfeitedwitheffect from5thDecember,2000.
Sd/K.M.RamPrasad Sd/Dr.A.C.Muthaiah
Member-DisciplinaryCommittee Chairman-DisciplinaryCommittee
Dated5thDecember,2000
Chennai.
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order inflicting the punishment upon him,
MohammedAzharuddin/appellantpreferredO.S.No.10of2001onthe fileof
thelearnedIIAdditionalChiefJudge,CityCivilCourt,Hyderabad.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as
arrayedinthesuit.
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
6/73
5. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff inter alia seeking the following
reliefs:
a)todeclareaportionofRule38(ii)oftheRulesandRegulationsofthe
BoardofControlforCricketinIndia(forshorttheBoard)afteritseveranceto
theextentwhichprecludesandprohibitstheplaintifffromcallingintoquestion
theactiontakenbytheCommitteeasaresultofaninquiryundertheRule,in
anycourtoflawasbadandillegal;
b)todeclaretheappointmentof thedefendant2and thereportdrawn
up by him as null and void, ultra vires and contrary to the established
procedure;
c) todeclare the proceedings ofdefendant1/Board dated05.12.2000
inflicting thereunder punishment and imposition of life ban on the plaintiff,
which was duly communicated by the Secretary through his letter dated
11.12.2000,asnullandvoidbeingcontraryto theRulesandRegulationsof
theBoardandviolativeoftheprinciplesofnaturaljustice;
d)todeclarethattheplaintiffbepermittedtoplaycricketduringhislife
timefortheIndianNationalTeamandsuchotherteamsandshallbeentitled
toallretirementbenefitsasaninternationalcricketerisentitledtoinIndiaand
to permit him to hold any such position asmaybe available orasmaybe
consideredintheBoardortheICC;and
e) to issue a perpetual and permanent injunction restraining the
defendantsinanywayeitherinterferingorrestrictingthecricketingcareerof
theplaintiffdirectlyorindirectly.
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
7/73
6.(a) Itisaverredintheplaintthattheplaintiffisalaw-abidingcitizen.Owing
to excellent performance in cricket, he was selected to represent Indian
NationalTeaminCricketTestmatchseriesagainstEnglandintheyear1984-
85.Onhisdebutitself,hecreatedaworldrecordbyscoringthreecenturiesin
arowinthreetests(arecordwhichisstillholdingthefield).Hehadalsoheld
many other records under his cap. It is further averred that considering his
excellentperformance,hewasselectedastheCaptainoftheIndianNational
Team inwhichcapacityhe represented the country inseveral test andone
day international cricketmatches, the detailsofwhich, thoughmentioned in
detail in the plaint, are not really necessary for us to adjudicate the
controversiesinvolvedinthisappeal.
6.(b) At the outset, it is pertinent to notice as to the cause for the
institutionofthesubjectsuitbeforetheCourtbelowwhichwasinviewofthe
innumerable reports that had come in both the print and electronic media
making allegations of under performance, match fixing, betting, accepting
gifts, etc. against several Cricket players, which the Secretary, Ministry of
Culture,YouthAffairs and Sports,Government of India, took cognizance of
leading to takecognizanceandask theCBI tocollect and evaluate various
newsitemsandinformationsopublishedinthatregardandthereafter,conduct
anenquiryintothoseallegations.Ultimately,attheculminationoftheenquiry,
thepunishmentinquestionwasinflictedupontheplaintiff,whichwas interalia
assailedbeforetheCourtbelowunderthesubjectsuit.
6.(c). Itis pleaded that thedefendant1 being the Board is a society
registered at Madras (Chennai) on 28.11.1940 under the provisions of the
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
8/73
Societies Registration Act, 1860 which is required to be
administered/governed in accordance with its memorandum andRules and
Regulations as last amended at the Special General Meeting held on
15.08.1994atUdaipur.Anyaction on the part of theBoardwhich is not in
consonancewith itsmemorandumandRulesandRegulationsisillegal. Itis
also specifically pleaded that the relationship between the plaintiff and
defendant1/Boardisinthenatureofaservicecontractandthattheprinciples
and procedure laid down by the Supreme Court with regard to initiation,
conduct, conclusion, issuance of show cause notices, charge memos and
imposition of punishment in disciplinary proceedings, etc. also govern and
applytothedisciplinaryproceedingsoftheBoard.
6.(d) Itisfurtherpleadedthatdefendant3fortheBoardappointedthe
defendant2,apracticingAdvocateanditsclient,whoinfactwasnotqualified
toconducttheenquirywasappointedastheCommissioneringrossviolation
of itsRulesandRegulations inasmuchas theydonot stipulate any specific
provision to do so whereby such action on the part of the Board being in
flagrantviolationofitsownRulesandRegulationsisillegal,arbitraryand ex
faciesheerconsequenceofthebiasedattitudeofthedefendant3againstthe
plaintiff.TheBoarddidnotdiscloseitsintentionofappointingaCommissioner
as no resolution was passed to that effect. Apart from that the disciplinary
committee with three members alone was competent to conduct such
proceedingsasclearlyenvisagedunderRule38oftheRulesandRegulations
oftheBoard.Itisclaimedthatthepreliminaryenquiry(forshortPE)initiated
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
9/73
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
10/73
Itisallegedthattheenquiryconductedbythedefendant2inanycasewasnot
transparent,fairandindependent,ashedidnotcallorexamineanywitness
whogavestatementagainsthiminhispresence,apartfromwhichattheend
evenbeforetheplaintiffcouldmakehispresencebeforehimonthesummons
sentbyhim,heannouncedthedateofsubmissionofhisreporttotheBoard,
which indicates that theenquirywas ashamandmere formalitywhichwas
done justwith themotive ofseeing that theplaintiff should bepunished. In
additionto that thedefendant2 placed relianceupon thePEreportand the
statementswhichwereinfactnotrecordedbeforehimonlyforthepurposeof
findingorholdingtheplaintiffasguilty,illegallyandinviolationoftheprinciples
of natural justice or established procedure prescribed under law in regard
thereto.On the otherhand, likewisequite illegally only twomembers of the
disciplinarycommitteeoftheBoardsolelyrelieduponthePEreportwhichwas
mechanicallyendorsedbythedefendant2andissuedtheproceedingsdated
5.12.2000debarring theplaintiff from playing cricket matches conductedor
authorised by itself or the ICC or its affiliated associations with effect from
05.12.2000and alsoholdingany post in thoseBodies inposthastewithout
consultingorreferringtothethirdmemberofthedisciplinarycommitteewhich
isborneoutbythefactthathedidnotsigntheproceedings.Thatapartthe
Boardalsoforfeitedthebenevolentfundtobearrangedtotheplaintiff.
6.(g). ItisclaimedthatRule38(ii)oftheRulesandRegulationsofthe
Boardwhich prohibited the plaintiff to initiate legal proceedings against the
Boardquestioningtheactiontakenbyitagainsthimis perseillegalandnot
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
11/73
bindingontheplaintiffasithasnolegalforceandisopposedtothepublic
policy.
6.(h). Itisfinallypleadedthatnoappealisprovidedagainstthereportof
thedefendant2andorderdated05.12.2000.Unlesstheimpugnedreportand
orderaresetasidedeclaringthemasillegal,nullandvoidandultravires,the
plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and injury. He claims that he has no
efficaciousalternativeremedythaninstitutingthepresentsuitinordertoseek
justice.
7.(a) TheDefendant1/theBoard,fileditswrittenstatementspecifically
denyingallthematerialavermentsmadewhich interaliareadstothefollowing
effect:
7.(b). It is stated that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable
either in lawor on the facts of the case for want of misjoinder and/or non-
joinder of parties. TheCourt below has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain
and try the suit as no part of the cause of action has arisen within its
jurisdiction. It is further pleaded that the entire suit is based on vexatious,
wrongfuland unsustainablecontentionsby reason ofwhich it is liable tobe
rejectedinliminewithexemplarycosts.Itisfurtherclaimedthatthesuitisalso
liable to be dismissed on the ground of improper valuation and improper
paymentofcourtfee.
7.(c). It is claimed further that the Board is an autonomous and
independentbodyregisteredinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofTamilNadu
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
12/73
Societies Registration Act, 1860 and its actions are guided by its own
constitution. It is claimed that the Board can initiate domestic enquiry in
accordancewith itsRulesandRegulationssubject to thecomplianceof the
principles of natural justice, equity and fair play, but the findings and/or
decisions of the domestic body cannot be superseded by a Court of law
throughajudicialscrutiny.
7.(d). It isspecificallydenied that therelationshipbetween theplaintiff
anddefendant1isinthenatureofaservicecontract.Itisspecificallypleaded
that there isa contractual obligation betweencricket players and theBoard
whereas theplayers by virtueof theprovisions ofRule10 of itsRulesand
Regulations would fall within the jurisdiction of the Board. The Rules and
Regulationsof theBoardarenotviolativeofanypublicpolicyandnotprima
facie illegal. They are exhaustive in nature and provide each and every
modality with regard to initiation, conduct, conclusion, imposition of
punishment, etc., in the matter of disciplinary proceedings initiated by the
Board to which the plaintiff had submitted himself. The plaintiff having
accepted theRulesand Regulationsof the Board isestopped frommaking
anyefforttowriggleoutoftheproceedings.Itisspecificallydeniedthatthough
the defendant 2 got no qualification was appointed as the Commissioner
illegally beyond the ambit of and in flagrant violation of its rules and
regulationsasserting that infacthis appointmentwasproper and legal.It is
also specifically claimed that the enquiry was a sham and mere formality
intendedtoimplicatetheplaintiffandimposepunishmentuponthem.Itisalso
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
13/73
pleadedthateventhoughtheenquirydoesnotdisclosethecommissionofany
offence under the provisions of IPC or any other statute, still as the facts
clearly disclose thecommission ofmisconductby the plaintiff, the domestic
bodylikethedefendant1isstatutorilyentitledtotakeappropriatedisciplinary
actionwithintheframeworkofitsownRulesandRegulations.
7.(e) Itisalsospecificallydeniedthattheplaintiffwasnotsuppliedwith
the copiesof thestatements of the witnessesexaminedduring the enquiry
conductedbytheCBIandthatthereportoftheCBIisbaselessandincorrect.
Itisclaimedthatonthespecificrequestoftheplaintiff,hewassuppliedwitha
fullcopyofthereportoftheCBI,thereceiptofwhichwasdulyacknowledged
bytheplaintifffollowingwhichonlytheplaintiffappearedbeforethedefendant
2duringtheenquiryandsubmitted27pagesstatementswhichareonrecord.
It isclaimed that everystatementmadeby the plaintiff was recorded in the
presenceofdefendant2andwassignedbyhim.Itisalsoclaimedthatthough
theplaintiffwasgivenopportunitytoexamineanywitnessorwitnesseswitha
viewtoavoidrecordingofcorroboratingevidenceagainsthim,hewilfullyhad
chosen not to call for any evidence being addressed or any witness being
examined.Itisstatedthattheplaintiffwasinitiallyaskedtoappearbeforethe
defendant 2 at New Delhi but at the behest of the plaintiff and to afford
completeandreasonableopportunity,thedomesticenquirywasconductedat
Hyderabadwhichistheplaceofresidenceoftheplaintiff.
7.(f). Itisalsoclaimedthattheplaintiffexpressedhissatisfactionand
gratitudeforthecourtesyextendedtohimduringthecourseofentireenquiry.
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
14/73
Itisthereforedeniedthattheenquiryproceedingsarevoidabinitioorillegalor
violative in the eye of law while pleading that it has been sufficiently
established that the plaintiff was guilty of gross misconduct. It is therefore
pleadedthatthewholeandsolemotiveonthepartoftheplaintiffinmaking
falseallegationsintheplaintistomisleadtheCourtsuppressingthematerial
facts.
7.(g). ItisclaimedfurtherthattheCBIreportwasdulyconsideredwith
openmindandindependently.Theultimatedecisionwasarrivedatonlyafter
dueconsiderationofallaspectsthatcametolightwhichsubstantiallyproved
that theplaintiffwasguiltyofgrossmisconduct.It isfurtherclaimedthat the
decision was taken and the punishment was imposed upon the plaintiff in
accordancewith the provisions of the Rules and Regulations of the Board
legallyandvalidly. It isspecifically denied that therewas non-applicationof
mindorthattherewasmechanicalorerroneousconclusionorthattheplaintiff
was subjected toharshpunishment.Whiledenying that the decision of the
defendant3wasmarkedbymalafideintentions,itisclaimedthatitistotally
immaterial whether the third Member of the disciplinary committee was
presentduringthecourseofhearingornot.Itisclaimedthattheplaintiffhas
nocauseofactiontofilethesuit.Accordingtohimitismisconceived,illegal,
wrongfulandbasedonutterfalseandmisleadingpleadingstoentertainit.
7.(h). It is further claimed that the defendant 2 submitted his report
dated05.12.2000tothefirstdefendant/BoardatChennai.Ontheotherhand
CBI reportwasmade and published at New Delhi; Infact except the mere
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
15/73
hearingaffordedtotheplaintiffatHyderabad,noeventwhatsoeverbearingon
the subjectmatter of the suit took placewithin the jurisdiction of theCourt
below;byreasonofwhichalsothesuitisnotmaintainableonthegroundof
lack of territorial jurisdiction. It is therefore prayedultimately that the suit is
liabletobedismissed.
8. TheDefendant2and3filed separatewrittenstatementswhich confer
with the written statement of the defendant No.1 which need not be
reproducedonceagain.Itissufficetorefertosomeimportantaspectswhich
the defendant No.2 dealt with directly. He claimed that no relief could be
claimedagainsthimashejustconductedtheenquiryandsubmittedthereport
thereonpursuanttohisappointmentastheCommissionerin regard thereto.
HepleadedthatRule38(ii)oftheRulesandRegulationsoftheBoardwere
amendedon29.09.2000inaccordancewithwhich,onlyindeed,heconducted
thedisciplinaryproceedingsthereafter.Withregardstohiseligibilityheclaims
thatatthetimeofhisretirementintheyear1992hewastheJointDirectorof
CBI, he has got vast experience in doing investigation and prosecution of
casesandalsoconductingaswellasmonitoringlargenumberofdepartmental
enquiries/disciplinary proceedings. Therefore he denies that he lacked
experienceinconductingthedisciplinaryproceedings.Itisspecificallyclaimed
byhimthatthestatementsoftheplaintiffwererecordedindetailaffordinghim
proper andnecessary opportunitywhich is reflected in the correspondence
thattookplacebetweentheplaintiffandhimself,viz.Lettersdated08.11.2000,
10.11.2000,13.11.2000,14.11.2000,15.11.2000,17.11.2000etc.Hisclaimis
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
16/73
that the plaintiff did question during the entire enquiry his appointment or
jurisdictiontoconducttheenquiry;ontheotherhandtheplaintiffhimselfsenta
fax message dated 17.11.2000 on his own volition to him expressing his
gratitude for the courtesy extended to him during the enquiry; It is pleaded
therebythatonlywithaviewtoprejudicetheCourtbelowhehasmadefalse
pleas in the plaint. It is claimed that the CBI which need not record the
statements of the witnesses in the presence of plaintiff supplied those
statementstotheplaintiffintotoasrequiredbylaw.Itisthereforedeniedthat
theplaintiffwasnotgivenfullandcompleteopportunitytomakeuseofthose
statementsforthecrossexaminationofwitnessesatthetimeofenquiry.On
theotherhandthedefendant2isobjectiveinpreparinghisreport.
9. On thebasisof thesepleadings, theCourtbelowframedthefollowing
issuesforadjudication:
1. WhethertheappointmentofseconddefendantasCommissioner
undertheproceedingsdated29.08.2000isvalid?
2. Whether the first defendant had inherent power to appoint
Commissionerforconductingenquiry?
3. Whethertheseconddefendantisincompetentandunqualifiedfor
beingappointedasCommissionerbythefirstdefendant?
4. Whether the enquiry conducted by defendantNo.2 is not legal
andvalidontheseveralgroundsallegedintheplaint?
5. Whether the allegation of match fixing against plaintiff is not
proved?
6. Whether the first defendant had not followed the procedure
prescribed by its bye-laws and the principles of natural justice
and,ifso,itsorderdated05.12.2000isnotvalid?
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
17/73
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
18/73
2) Whetherthesuitismaintainable
(a)byvirtueofrule38(1)oftheRulesandregulationsofthe
Boardwhichprohibittofilethesuitand
(b)byvirtueofnonjoinderofnecessaryparties?
3) WhethertheBoardgotpowertoappointthedefendant2as the
Commissioner by the orderdatedon29.08.2000 toconduct the
enquirywithregardstoanyactsofindisciplineandmisconductof
theplaintiffandsubmitreport,inviewofRule38oftheRulesand
RegulationsoftheBoardandhencetheappointmentisvalid?
4) Whether the defendant 2 as theCommissioner was competent
andqualifiedtoconducttheenquiryagainsttheplaintiffeffectively
in the light of the fact that he was advising the Board as anAdvocateonlegalissues?
5) Whether the defendant 2 had followed the rule of principles of
naturaljusticeduringthecourseofentireenquiry?
6) Whetherthedefendant2hadmadeany independentenquiry to
provetheallegationsofmatchfixingbyaffordinganopportunityto
the plaintiff to cross-examine the concerned witnesses whose
statementswere relied uponwhile drawing up his report dated
24.11.2000?
7) Whether the impugned order dated 05.12.2000 of the Board
passedby only twomembers instead of threemembers of the
disciplinaryCommitteeasmandatedbyRule18oftheRulesand
Regulations is legal and valid, more particularly in the light of
letterdated04.12.2000addressedbythethirdMemberofittothe
Boardseekingtofixfreshdateforconveningthemeeting?
8) What are the effects of the report dated 24.11.2000 of the
defendant 2 and the impugned order dated 05.12.2000 of the
Board?
9) WhetherthejudgmentanddecreepassedbytheCourtbeloware
liabletobesetasideconsequently?
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
19/73
10) Whethertheplaintiffisentitledtothereliefsprayedforinthesuit?
11) Ifso,towhatrelief?
15. Itisthespecificpleaoftheplaintiffintheplaintthatthecauseofaction
arosewithin the territorial jurisdiction of the Courtbelow inasmuchas the
defendant 2had conductedthe enquiry proceedingsatHyderabad and that
necessarycommunicationswith regards to thesubject enquiry including the
serviceoftheimpugnedorderdated05.12.2000weresenttohisHyderabad
address,wherehewasapermanentresident.Therefore,itisthecontentionof
learnedcounselfortheplaintiffthattheCourtbelowgotterritorialjurisdiction
totrythesuit.
16. ThedefendantswhileclaimingatonestagethattheCourtbelowgotno
territorial jurisdiction have claimed at another stage that the enquiry was
conducted at Hyderabad which is the place of permanent resident of the
plaintiff.Thismakesatcategoricalthatthecauseofactiontofilethesuitarose
atHyderabad.Section20CPCwhichisrelevanthereenjoins.
17. Thus by virtue of this provision the Court below got jurisdiction to
entertainthesuitaswithinitslocaljurisdictiontheplaintiffusedtoresideand
alsotheenquirywasconductedwhichwouldgivenecessarycauseofaction.
18. Rule42of theRulesandRegulationsof theBoardisrelevanthere, it
readstothefollowingeffect:
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
20/73
42. SuitbyoragainsttheBoard:
TheBoardshallsueorbesuedinthenameoftheSecretary.
ThisRuleappearstobequitecontradictorytotheprohibitionenshrinedinRule
38(ii)whichistotheeffectthattheaction,ifany,takenbytheCommitteeasa
resultofanenquiryshallnotbecalledintoquestioninanycourtoflaw.Here
Section 9 CPC is also relevant as this provision in fact gives right to the
plaintiff to file the suit.This sectionenjoins theCourts shallsubject to the
provisions hereincontained have jurisdiction to try all suitsof a civilnature
excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly
barred.Sobyvirtueofthisprovisioneverybodywillhavearighttofilesuitof
civilnatureforreaddressinghisgrievanceunlessthereisastatutorybartodo
so.
19. Definitely this suit filed to redress the grievances of the plaintiff as
enunciated is purely civil in nature. Rule 38(2) will not have any statutory
enforcementindependently.
20. In ,theSupremeCourt,interalia
whiledealingwith the basicdistinctionbetween the rightofsuitandrightof
appealalsodealtwiththerightofsuitexclusively.Thisdecisioninfactclarifies
categoricallythequestionraisedinthepresentcontext.Wheneverybodywill
haveaninherentrighttofileasuittoredresshisgrievanceagainstanotheror
othersunlessprohibitedbylawanyprovisionmadeagainst thespiritofthat
concept cannot be held to be valid.
OntheotherhandanyprecedentslaidbytheconstitutionalCourtsoperateas
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
21/73
lawasinterpretedwhichwillhavestatutoryforce.Itisquiteunconstitutionalto
preventapersonfromexercisingsuchrightthoughinfringedquitearbitrarily.
InfacttheApexCourtheld:
15.ItisthusclearthattheappealfiledbyDefendants2and3in
the High Court was directed originally not against any part of the
preliminarydecreebutagainstamerefindingrecordedbythetrialourt
that the partition was not genuine. The main controversy before us
centres roundthequestionwhether thatappealwasmaintainable.On
thisquestionthepositionseemstouswellestablished.Thereisabasic
distinctionbetweentherightofsuitandtherightofappeal.Thereisan
inherentrightineverypersontobringasuitofacivilnatureandunlessthesuitisbarredbystatuteonemay,atonesperil,bringasuitofones
choice. Itisnoanswertoasuit,howsoever frivolous toclaim,thatthe
lawconfersnosuchrighttosue.Asuitforitsmaintainabilityrequiresno
authorityoflawanditisenoughthatnostatutebarsthesuit.Butthe
positionin regard toappeals isquite theopposite.The rightofappeal
inheres innoone and thereforeanappeal for itsmaintainabilitymust
havetheclearauthorityoflaw.Thatexplainswhytherightofappealis
describedasacreatureofstatute.
[Emphasisisours]
Itiscomprehensiblefromthisdecisionthatthereisabasicdistinctionbetween
therightofsuitandtherightofappealandthatasuitismaintainableifthereis
no statutorybar to do so.Significantly in the present case,Rule 42 clearly
positsthattheBoardcanbesuedinthenameofitsSecretarywhichisquite
contradictory to the Rule 38(ii) which enjoins that any action taken by the
Committeeasaresultofanenquiryshallnotbecalledintoquestioninany
Courtoflaw.Whentherearecontradictoryprovisionsonthesubjectwithinthe
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
22/73
rules that which is in accordance with law laid or interpreted statutorily will
prevailandwillbeenforced.TheembargocontainedinRule38(ii)whichruns
contrary to the other rule, is clearly illegal and arbitrary and hence invalid
thereby.
21. In fact the Supreme Court in
clearly clarified the status of the board for the purpose of
initiatingactionagainsttheboardwhentheboardinvolvedinviolatingtheright
ofacricketplayerwhowasfoundbytherulesandregulationsoftheboard.
Undersimilarquestionsraised,infacttheSupremeCourtobservedandheld:
23.Thefactsestablishedinthiscaseshowthefollowing:
1.TheBoardisnotcreatedbyastatute.
2.NopartofthesharecapitaloftheBoardisheldbythe
Government.
3. Practically no financial assistance is given by the
GovernmenttomeetthewholeorentireexpenditureoftheBoard.
4.TheBoarddoesenjoyamonopolystatusinthefieldof
cricketbutsuchstatusisnotState-conferredorState-protected.
5. There is no existence of a deep and pervasive State
control. The control if any is only regulatory in nature as
applicabletoothersimilarbodies.Thiscontrolisnotspecifically
exercisedunderany special statute applicable to theBoard. All
functionsoftheBoardarenotpublicfunctionsnoraretheyclosely
relatedtogovernmentalfunctions.6.TheBoard is not created by transferof agovernment-
ownedcorporation.Itisanautonomousbody.
31.Bethatasitmay,itcannotbedeniedthattheBoarddoesdischarge
somedutiesliketheselectionofanIndiancricketteam,controllingthe
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
23/73
activities of the players and others involved in the game of cricket.
TheseactivitiescanbesaidtobeakintopublicdutiesorStatefunctions
andifthereisanyviolationofanyconstitutionalorstatutoryobligationor
rightsofothercitizens,theaggrievedpartymaynothaveareliefbyway
ofapetitionunderArticle32.Butthatdoesnotmeanthattheviolatorof
such rightwould go scot-freemerely because itor he is not aState.
Under the Indian jurisprudence there is always a just remedy for the
violationofarightofacitizen.ThoughtheremedyunderArticle32is
notavailable,anaggrievedpartycanalwaysseekaremedyunderthe
ordinarycourseoflaworbywayofawritpetitionunderArticle226of
theConstitution,whichismuchwiderthanArticle32.
203. It isnot disputedthat theUnionof Indiahas notrecognisedany
othernationalsportsbodyforregulatingthegameofcricketinIndia.Itis
thecategoricalstandoftheUnionofIndiathatonlybysuchrecognition
grantedby the Unionof India, is the team selectedby the Board the
Indian cricket teamwhich it couldnot do in the absence thereof.We
cannotacceptthesubmissionofMrVenugopaltotheeffectthateven
whileplayingabroad,theBoardsendsitsownteam.Itisevident from
therecordswhichfacthasalsobeennoticedbytheDelhiHighCourtin
itsjudgmentinRahulMehra[(2004)114DLT323(DB)]thattheBoard
fields its team as the Indian team and not as Board Eleven, which
withouthavinganyauthorityfromtheUnionofIndia,itwillnotbeableto
do. The stand that the cricket team selected by the Board only
representsitandnotthecountryisincorrect.HavingregardtotheRules
oftheICC,itsownRulesasalsovariousdocumentsplacedbeforethis
CourtbytheUnionofIndia,theconductofboththeBoardandtheUnion
ofIndiaclearlygoestoshowthatsubsilentioboththepartieshadbeen
acting on the premise that the Board is recognised as the only
recognisednationalfederationforthepurposeofregulatingthegameof
cricketinIndia.
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
24/73
[Emphasisisours]
Thus it is held by the Supreme Court that although the Board is an
autonomousbody,itcannotbedeniedthefactthattheBoarddoesdischarge
somedutiesakintopublicdutiesorStatefunctions,namely,theselectionof
an Indian cricket team, controlling the activities of the players and others
involvedinthegameofcricket;ifthereisanyviolationofanyconstitutionalor
statutoryobligationor rights, theaggrievedpartycanalwaysseekaremedy
undertheordinarycourseoflawandtheviolatorofsuchrightwouldnotgo
scot-freemerelybecauseitisnotaState.Thoughtheplaintiffwasboundby
therulesandregulationsoftheBoardthatdoesnotmeanthattheBoardcould
actquitearbitrarilyinfringinghisfundamentalrights.ByvirtueofArticle21of
theConstitution,heisguaranteedlifeandliberty.Thisentitleshimtolivewith
dignityandfightanyinjusticethatmaybedonetohim.Punishinghimwithout
anybasisisdefinitelycurtailmentofhislifeandlibertyguaranteedunderthe
saidArticle and quitearbitrary. Though the Boardgot enormouspowers as
contemplatedby its rulesand regulations thatshould besubject to fair play
andfundamentalrightsoftheplayersselectedby it. Inademocraticcountry
every system in vogue therein should be conducted within the process of
democracy.InthelightofthislawlaiddownbytheSupremeCourt,itcannot
be said that the Board being an autonomous body, its actions cannot be
subjecttochallengebeforeaCourtoflaw.
22. Withregardtothecontentionoflearnedcounselforthedefendantsthat
thesuitisnotmaintainableagainsttheBoardastherelationshipbetweenthe
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
25/73
plaintiff and theBoard is a contract of service by reasonof which also the
plaintiffisnotentitledtoquestionanyrulesorregulationsframedbytheBoard
and,atbest,theplaintiffcanlayasuitfordamagesinsuchcasesifheisso
advised in the
SupremeCourtheldthus:
12. The regulations contain the terms and conditions which
govern the relationship between the Corporation and its employees.
Thoughmade under the power conferred by the statute, they merely
embody the termsandconditions ofservice intheCorporationbut do
notconstituteastatutoryrestrictionastothekindofcontractswhichthe
Corporationcanmakewithitsservantsorthegroundsonwhich itcan
terminatethem.Thatbeingso,andtheCorporationhavingundoubtedly
thepowertodismissitsemployees,thedismissaloftherespondentwas
withjurisdiction,andalthoughitwaswrongfulinthesenseofitsbeingin
breach of the terms and conditions which governed the relationship
betweentheCorporationandtherespondent,itdidsubsist.Thepresent
case, therefore, did not fall under any of the three well-recognized
exceptions,andtherefore,therespondentwasonlyentitledtodamages
andnottothedeclarationthathisdismissalwasnullandvoid.
[Emphasisisours]
So in this theSupremeCourtunder relevantcircumstances particularlynon
falling of the case under any of the three
well-recognized exceptions, held that the respondent-workman was only
entitledtoseekdamagesinsteadofseekingadeclarationastohisdismissal
asnullandvoid.Onfacts,thisdecisionhasnoapplicationtothepresentcase.
23. Inthepresentcase,nostatutoryprovisionisplacedbeforeuswhereby
asuit isnotmaintainableagainst theBoardexcepta restrictioncontainedin
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
26/73
Rule38 thattheactionofCommitteeshallnotbeassailedbeforeaCourtof
lawwhich isclearly inconsistentwithRule42which inunmistakable terms
providesthattheBoardcansueandbesued.Insofarasnon-joinderandmis-
joinderof parties to the suit isconcerned, specific reliefsare soughtagainst
theBoardonly, as rightly put it by the learnedcounsel for the plaintiff, and
therefore,thecontentionraisedinthatregardcannotbecountenanced.
24. Thelearnedcounselforthedefendantsalsohasarguedthatthesuitis
not maintainable on the ground of mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties.
Refutingthiscontention,thelearnedcounselfortheplaintiffsubmittedthatthe
reliefs inthesuitareonlysoughtagainsttheBoardandthereforenecessary
andproperpartiesarearraignedinthesuitandtherewasnoneedtoimplead
anyotherpartiesforthepurposeofmaintainingthesuitandthatthesuitas
framedandinstitutedisclearlymaintainable.
25. In the light of the facts and circumstances of cases discussed
hereinabove and keeping inmind the law laid down by the SupremeCourt
referred to supra on the point, we hold that the suit is maintainable. We
accordingly answer thePoint No.2 in favour of the plaintiffand against the
defendants.
26. ItisthecaseoftheplaintiffthatRule38attherelevantpointoftimedid
not ipso facto envisage appointment of a Commissioner by the Board for
conducting an enquiry into the allegations of any act of indiscipline or
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
27/73
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
28/73
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
29/73
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
30/73
(c)AMemberoranAssociateMemberoroffice-bearerorVice-
President expelled under these rules shall forfeit all rights,
privilegesandbenefits.
(d)AmemberoranAssociateMember expelledunder this rule
mayonapplicationmadetwoyearsafterexpulsionbereadmitted
by the Board provided that a General Meeting 3/4th of the
Members present and voting, vote for readmission of such
member.
[Emphasisisours]
Admittedly, the rule as extracted above was in force as on 29.08.2000
however,itissaidthatthereafterthisruleunderwentamendmentwhichcame
intoforceonandfrom29.09.2000.
30. A bare perusal of the rule makes it plain that if there is any act or
indisciplineormisconductofanyplayer,thePresidentisempoweredtotake
cognizancethereofandshallactinthemannersospecifiedintheruleonly.In
suchanevent,therulethereafterordainsthatthePresidentshalleitherframe
charges against such player in that behalf or direct the Secretary to doso
which shall be communicated to such player by the Secretary.
In such cases, the offending player is called upon to offer his explanation
answering those charges framed against him. After the receipt of the
explanation from the offending player, the President shall constitute a
Committeeconsistingofthreepersonsincludinghimselfbeingoneamongthe
threemembersoftheCommitteeandtheexplanationshallbeplacedbefore
suchCommittee for its decision. If theCommittee is satisfied therewith, no
action is to be proposed against the offending player. However, if the
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
31/73
Committeeisnotcontentwiththeexplanation,ameetingshallbeconvenedby
theCommitteeandreasonablenoticeofdate,placeandtimeofthemeeting
shall be afforded to the offending player enabling him to attend in person
beforeitbecomingnecessaryevidence, ifany,hemayhavedesiredto lead
and place before it. Thereafter, the offending player shall be heard by the
Committeewhichshallalsoallowhimtoadduceorproducefurtherevidence
beforeit.Indoingso,theCommitteeshallalsoobservetheruleofprinciplesof
naturaljustice.ItisalsoenvisagedthereinthatthedecisionoftheCommittee
shallbefinalandbindingontheoffendingplayeraswellastheBoard.
31. It isclearlycontemplatedthat if theadherenceof theprovisionsofthe
said rule is violated while complying with those by any Member or an
AssociateMember or any office bearer or anyVice-President of the Board,
theyshallbeheldtobeguiltyofsuchconductwhichmaybeconsideredbythe
Boardasislikelytoendangeritsharmonyoraffectitsreputation,stabilityand
interest, thereby such guilty member is liable to expulsion by way of a
resolutiontobetakenataGeneralMeetingoftheBoardby3/4 thofthevotes
ofthememberspresentatthetimeofvoting.However,despitecontemplating
imposition of this stringent punishment upon the guilty expelled member,
underclause(d)ofsub-rule (iii)ofRule38, itisspecificallyprovided thatan
expelledmember,onhisapplication twoyearsaftersuchexpulsion,maybe
re-admittedbytheBoardif3/4thoftheMemberspresentatthetimeofvoting,
votedforthere-admissionofsuchmemberataGeneralMeeting.
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
32/73
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
33/73
Defendanton29.08.2000forconductinganenquiryintothevarioussaid
allegations.
[Emphasisisours]
Itishoweverrelevanttonoticetheavermentsofthedefendant2raised
atpara2(iii)inhiswrittenstatementwhichreadsasunder:
iii. .........Theplaintiffwhilequestioningtheappointmentofthis
Defendant and the actions of this Defendant, has challenged the
provisions of the Rule 38(ii) relating to holding of disciplinary
proceedings as before amendment of the said Rules on 29.09.2000.
This Defendant conducted the disciplinary proceedings only after
29.09.2000..........
[Emphasisisours]
The Defendant 2, in fact, in the preface of his report dated 24.11.2000
submittedtotheBoard,onthisaspect,notedthus:
AsIhavebeenappointedasCommissionerbytheBoardofControlfor
CricketinIndia(BCCI)videtheirletterdatedAugust29,2000toconductfollowupenquiriesinsuchcases,BCCImadeavailabletomeacopyof
thereporton2ndNovember,2000.
[Emphasisisours]
Eventheavermentofdefendant3inthisregardistothesimilareffect.It
isalsousefultolookatpara8ofhiswrittenstatementinthiscontextwhich
readsasfollows:
8. .........It is submitted that Rue 38 of the Rules and
Regulations ofBCCI,whichwasamended on 29.09.2000specifically
provide for reference of any complaint relating to indiscipline,
misconduct or violation of any of the Rules and Regulations by any
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
34/73
player,umpire,etc.toaCommissionerformakingapreliminaryenquiry.
.........
[Emphasisisours]
Whereas admittedly the Board appointed the defendant 2 as the
Commissioneron29.08.2000andthattherulewasamended. It is crystal
clearthatbythedateofappointmentofdefendantastheCommissionerbythe
Board on 29.08.2000 the unamended Rule was holding the field which
reflected that the Board exercised its power in making such appointment
purportedly underRule 38 thereof.Fortunately orunfortunately,Rule 38as
stood as on that day did not confer power on the Board to appoint the
Commissioner.PerhapsthatwasoneofthereasonswhytheBoardthoughtit
fit toamendtheRulesandRegulationson29.09.2000 i.e. immediatelyone
monthaftertheappointmentofthedefendant2astheCommissionerunderits
unamendedRulesandRegulations. Itmaybe true that theamendedRules
and Regulations confer power on the Board to do so. This so-called
amendmentwillnotcometotheaidoftheBoardtocontendthattheeffectof
the amendment of its Rules and Regulations would have impact and
applicationontheactsmadeanddonebyitpriorthereto.Suchcontention,in
anyevent,doesnotstandtoreasonandcannotbecountenanced.Itisrather
startling to take note of the fact that for the utter violation committed in
appointing the defendant 2 as the Commissioner quite contrary to its own
Rule, the Board failed to initiate action, namely, expulsion of the
violator/violators of its RulesandRegulations from theofficeas specifically
contemplated under Rule 38(iii)(a) as on 29.08.2000. In the light of this
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
35/73
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
36/73
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
37/73
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
38/73
39. That apart, it is clearlyurgedbefore us that thedefendant2wasnot
qualifiedandcompetenttobeappointedastheCommissionerinasmuchashe
hadnoexperienceandwasnotwellacquaintedwiththeprocedurelaidand
hencenotadeptandunsustainableforconductingthesubjectenquiriesinas
muchashehadneverbeenaJudgenorhadundergoneanytraininginthat
regard;andthathedidnotknowtherudimentariesorthebasicsofthesportof
cricket.On thesegroundscoupledwiththefactthathisappointmentitself is
invalidbeinginstarkviolationoftheRulesandRegulationsoftheBoard,the
consequentialimpugnedorderdated05.12.2000issummarilyliabletobeset
aside.
40. Apropos the contention that the defendant 2 was not adept and
unsuitable to be appointed as the Commissioner to conduct the subject
enquiry,itissubmittedthatthedefendant2was,indeed,theJointDirectorof
CBI that he had vast experience in conducting investigations and in
prosecuting and monitoring various cases including large number of
departmentalenquiries/disciplinaryproceedings;andthatinviewofthishigh-
profile and professional background, it is illegal and unfair to term the
defendant 2 to be not adept and unsuitable for being appointed as the
Commissioner, which issue was fairly considered and upheld by the Court
belowwhichdoesnotwarrantanyinterferencefromthisCourt.Referenceis
alsomade topara8ofthewrittenstatementfiled bythedefendant2which
reflects thathewaswellacquaintedwith the conductingofenquiries of this
nature.
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
39/73
41. It is true that in the light of the nature of findings recorded by us
hereinaboveonthePointNos.1to3,itisusuallynotnecessaryforthisCourt
toadjudicateanddecidetheotherpointsandstraightawaytheappealcanbe
disposedof.However,wedealwiththeotherpointsformulatedbyusalsoon
merits keeping in mind the lengthy arguments put forth before us by the
learnedcounseloneithersidewhichtherebyrequiredtobedecidedonmerits.
42. In
theSupremeCourtexplainedastowhatprocedure
shouldnormallybefollowedinadisciplinaryenquiryandheldasunder:
22 The sixty-five page report has been sent to theManaging
Directorof the Nigamagainst the petitioner recording therein that the
chargesagainsthimstandprovedwhatisthebasis?Wastheenquiry
officer justified in coming to such a conclusion on the basis of the
charge-sheetonly?Theanswercannotpossiblybeintheaffirmative;if
therecordshavebeenconsidered,theimmediatenecessitywouldbeto
considerastowhoisthepersonwhohasproducedthesameandthe
nextissuecouldbeasregardsthenatureoftherecordsunfortunately
thereisnotawhisperintheratherlongishreportinthatregard.Where
isthepresentingofficer?Whereisthenoticefixingthedateofhearing?
Where is the list of witnesses? What has happened to the defence
witnesses?All thesequestionsarisebutunfortunatelynoanswer isto
befoundintheratherlongishreport.Butifonedoesnothaveitcanitbetermedtobeinconsonancewiththeconceptofjusticeorthesame
tantamountstoatotalmiscarriageofjustice.TheHighCourtanswersit
as miscarriage of justice and we do lend our concurrence therewith.
[Empahsisisours]
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
40/73
43. In
the Supreme Court considering its earlier judgments deduced the
following principles as to the procedure to be adopted in the departmental
enquiries:
15. From the above decisions, the following principles would
emerge:
(i)Theenquiriesmustbeconductedbonafideandcaremustbe
takentoseethattheenquiriesdonotbecomeemptyformalities.
(ii) If an officer is awitness toanyofthe incidentswhich is the
subject-matteroftheenquiryoriftheenquirywasinitiatedonareportofanofficer,theninallfairnessheshouldnotbetheenquiryofficer.Ifthe
said position becomes known after the appointment of the enquiry
officer,duringtheenquiry,stepsshouldbetakentoseethatthetaskof
holdinganenquiryisassignedtosomeotherofficer.
(iii)Inanenquiry,theemployer/departmentshouldtakestepsfirst
toleadevidenceagainsttheworkman/delinquentchargedandgivean
opportunitytohimtocross-examinethewitnessesoftheemployer.Only
thereafter,theworkman/delinquentbeaskedwhetherhewantstolead
anyevidenceandaskedtogiveanyexplanationabouttheevidenceled
againsthim.
(iv)Onreceiptoftheenquiryreport,beforeproceedingfurther,it
isincumbentonthepartofthedisciplinary/punishingauthoritytosupply
acopyoftheenquiryreportandallconnectedmaterialsreliedonbythe
enquiryofficertoenablehimtoofferhisviews,ifany.
44. As can be seen from the report dated 24.11.2000 submitted by the
defendant2totheBoard,theabovesaidprincipleslaiddownbytheSupreme
Court had not been succinctly followedbyhimwhiledrawing uphis report,
whichclearlysuggeststhathewasnotwellacquaintedwiththefundamental
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
41/73
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
42/73
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
43/73
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
44/73
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
45/73
defendant2.Statingso,thelearnedcounselposedaquestiontohimselfthat
when the CBI failed to gather any concrete evidence during its marathon
preliminaryenquiryandinfactsaidsoinitsreporttotheeffectthattherewas
no evidence against the plaintiff with regard to match fixing, it is
incomprehensibleandinexplicableastohowtheCommittee/theBoardcame
toaconclusionthattheplaintiffisfoundguiltyoftheallegationofmatchfixing
in the light of the fact that defendant 2 did not conduct any independent
enquiry, examine and record any evidence from any other independent
witnesses,saveandexceptthemerestatementoftheplaintiffalone,whichis
only the record available before the Committee for arrivingatanerroneous
conclusions, which are liable to be set aside being recorded based on no
evidenceatall.Thelearnedcounselthussubmittedthatintheabsenceofany
independent enquiry by defendant 2 with regard to the allegation of match
fixing against the plaintiff,his client cannotbe held to be guiltyofsuch an
allegationwithoutanyconcreteevidencebroughtonrecord.
50. Insofarastheviolationofprinciplesofnaturaljusticeisconcerned,itis
seriouslycontendedthattheplaintiffhavingparticipatedintheentireenquiry
proceedings conducted by the defendant 2 did not raise any objection
whatsoeverandthusatthisstageviolationofanyprinciplesofnaturaljustice
orany statutoryprocedureduring theenquiryconductedagainsthimcannot
beraised.
51. ItisalsoputforthbeforethisCourtonbehalfofthedefendantsthatthe
CBIinitsreportdated31.10.2000cametotheconclusionagainsttheplaintiff
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
46/73
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
47/73
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
48/73
156(3)Cr.PC,theCBICourtwhogot jurisdiction can refera complaint filed
before it to the CBI for conducting necessary investigation and report with
regardstoacriminalchargesubjecttoitscompetencytotakecognizanceofit.
Thereby itappears thatthereferenceofthemattertotheCBIforconducting
necessary preliminary enquiry or investigation in the matter is without any
authority.EvenotherwisethepreliminaryenquiryreportoftheCBIcannotbea
basistotakeactionagainsttheplaintiffasthenomenclatureofit(preliminary
enquiry)itselfindicatesthatitissubjecttothefinalenquirytobeconductedon
showingsufficientmaterialtodoso.ThereforethereportoftheCBIcouldnot
be a basis for the defendant 2 to give his report to the Board against the
plaintiff.UtmosthecouldhavetakenintoconsiderationtheCBIrecordasaid
to go on with the final enquiry proceedings before him. He ought to have
examined the witnesses concerned and recorded their statements giving
opportunitytotheplaintifftocrossexaminehimsubjecttohisauthoritytodo
so.Ifonthatbasishecametotheconclusionthatthechargesleveledagainst
theplaintiffwereprovedhecouldhavesenthisreporttotheBoardagainstthe
plaintiff accordingly. These basic and fundamental procedures were not
followedbythedefendant2whileplacingrelianceonthestatementsrecorded
by CBI. This failure on the part of defendant 2 is fatal to the case of the
defendants.Thereforetheconsequentialreportdated24.11.2000isanullityin
theeyesoflawandcannotbecountenancedandactedupon.
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
49/73
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
50/73
therein.Suchapreliminaryenquirymayevenbeheldexparte,foritis
merelyforthesatisfactionofgovernment,thoughusuallyforthesakeof
fairness,explanationistakenfromtheservantconcernedevenassuch
anenquiry.Butatthatstagehehasnorighttobeheardfortheenquiry
ismerelyforthesatisfactionofthegovernmentanditisonlywhenthe
government decides to hold a regular departmental enquiry for the
purpose of inflicting one of the three major punishments that the
governmentservantgetstheprotectionofArticle311andalltherights
that that protection implies as already indicated above. There must
thereforebenoconfusionbetweenthetwoenquiriesanditisonlywhen
the government proceeds to hold a departmental enquiry for the
purposeofinflictingon thegovernmentservantoneofthethreemajorpunishments indicated in Article 311 that the government servant is
entitledtotheprotectionofthatArticle.
55. Aslongbackasintheyear1964itselftheSupremeCourthadoccasion
todistinguishbetweenpreliminaryenquiryandregulardepartmentalenquiry
and stated the stark differences in between the two enquiries. A careful
reading of the judgment makes it abundantly obvious that generally a
preliminary enquiry is initiated only for the purpose of collection of facts in
respectofaparticularaspect/issueandsuchpreliminaryenquirymayevenbe
held ex parte as no punishment is inflicted on the ultimate result of such
enquiry. On the other hand, a regular departmental enquiry is usually
proposed tobeheldwithaview to imposepunishmentupon thedelinquent
personsiftheallegationslevelledagainstthemareprovedultimatelyinsuch
an enquiry. Therefore, in conducting regular departmental enquiry, the
constitutionalprotectionsshallbeaffordedtothedelinquentpersons.
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
51/73
56. The learned counsel for the plaintiff seeks to place reliance on a
Judgment of the Supreme Court in
wherein
the ConstitutionBenchdealingwith theprinciples of natural justice held as
under:
10. Theonlygeneralstatementthatcanbesafelymadein
thisconnectionisthatthedepartmentalenquiriesshouldobserverules
ofnaturaljustice,andthatiftheyarefairlyandproperlyconductedthe
decisionsreachedbytheenquiryofficersonthemeritsarenotopento
be challenged on the ground that the procedure followed was not
exactlyinaccordancewiththatwhichisobservedincourtsoflaw.As
VenkataramaAiyar,J.hasobservedinUnionofIndiav.T.R.Varma[AIR
1957 SC 882] stating it broadly and without intending it to be
exhaustiveitmaybeobservedthatrulesofnaturaljusticerequirethata
partyshouldhavetheopportunityofadducingallrelevantevidenceon
whichherelies,thattheevidenceoftheopponentshouldbetakeninhis
presence, and that he should be given the opportunity of cross-
examiningthewitnessesexaminedbythatparty,andthatnomaterials
shouldbereliedonagainsthimwithouthisbeinggivenanopportunityof
explaining them.It ishardly necessary toemphasise that the right to
cross-examine thewitnesseswhogiveevidenceagainsthim isa very
valuableright,and ifitappears thateffectiveexerciseof thisrighthas
beenpreventedbytheenquiryofficerbynotgivingtotheofficerrelevant
documents to which he is entitled, that inevitably would be that the
enquiryhad notbeenheld inaccordancewith rulesofnatural justice.That is the view taken by the High Court, and in the present appeal
which has been brought to this Court under Article 136 we see no
justificationfor interferingwithit.Inthisconnection itwouldberelevant
torefertothedecisionofthisCourtinKhemChandv.UnionofIndia
[AIR1958SC300]wherethisCourthasemphasisedtheimportanceof
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
52/73
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
53/73
accusationbutalsothetestimonybywhichtheaccusationissupported.
Hemustbegivenafairchancetoheartheevidenceinsupportofthe
chargeandtoputsuchrelevantquestionsbywayofcross-examination
ashedesires.Thenhemustbegivenachancetorebuttheevidence
led against him. This is the barest requirement of an enquiry of this
characterandthisrequirementmustbesubstantiallyfulfilledbeforethe
resultoftheenquirycanbeaccepted.Adeparturefromthisrequirement
ineffectthrowstheburdenuponthepersonchargedtorepelthecharge
withoutfirstmakingitoutagainsthim. Inthepresentcaseneitherwas
any witness examined nor was any statement made by any witness
tenderedinevidence.Theenquiry,suchasitwas,madebyMr.Marshall
orMr.Nicholswhowerenotonly in theposition of judges butalso ofprosecutors and witnesses. Therewas no opportunity to thepersons
charged tocross-examine themandindeed theydrewupon theirown
knowledge of the incident and instead cross-examined the persons
charged.
[Emphasisisours]
58. The learned counsel for the plaintiff also invited our attention to a
Judgment of the Supreme Court in
whereintheSupremeCourtheldasunder:
14. Therulesofnaturaljusticeinthecircumstancesofthe
case, required that the respondent should be given a reasonable
opportunity to deny his guilt, to defend himself and to establish his
innocencewhichmeansandincludesanopportunitytocross-examine
the witnesses relied upon by the appellant Corporation and an
opportunitytoleadevidenceindefenceofthechargeasalsoashow-
cause notice for the proposed punishment. Such an opportunity was
deniedtotherespondentintheinstantcase.Admittedly,therespondent
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
54/73
was not allowed to lead evidence in defence. Further, he was not
allowed tocross-examinecertain personswhosestatementswerenot
recordedbytheEnquiryOfficer(oppositeparty1)inthepresenceofthe
respondent.Therewascontroversyonthispoint.Butitwascleartothe
HighCourt from the report ofenquiryby theoppositeparty 1 thathe
relied upon the reports ofsomepersons and the statementsofsome
otherpersonswhowerenotexaminedbyhim.Aregulardepartmental
enquirytakesplaceonlyafterthecharge-sheetisdrawnupandserved
upon the delinquent and the latters explanation is obtained. In the
presentcase,nosuchenquirywasheldandtheorderofdismissalwas
passed summarily after perusing the respondents explanation. The
rulesofnaturaljusticeinthiscase,werehonouredintotalbreach.Theimpugnedorderofdismissalwasthusbadin lawandhadbeenrightly
setasidebytheHighCourt.
[Emphasisisours]
SomemoredecisionsoftheSupremeCourtaswellastheHighCourtsinthe
country were also brought toournoticeon this aspect holding to thesame
effect and therefore they need not be referred to here as there can be no
disputeastothelawlaiddownbytheSupremeCourt.Wethereforefeelthatit
isnotnecessarytodilatefurtheronthisissue.
59. Thelearnedcounselforthedefendants,on theotherhandhasdrawn
theattentionofthisCourttoaJudgmentoftheSupremeCourtin
andreiteratedhis
arguments that the need for compliance of the principles of natural justice
woulddependupon thefactsand circumstancesofeachcase.Therein, the
SupremeCourtheldthus:
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
55/73
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
56/73
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
57/73
,weare
therefore of the firm view that no independent enquiry was made by the
defendant 2 to find out as to whether the plaintiff was really guilty of the
charges of match fixing and that no opportunity of cross-examining the
witnesseswhosestatementswererelieduponbyhimwasaffordedtohimand
thereby the rule of principles of natural justice was violated throughout the
enquiry proceedings conducted by defendant 2 as a Commissioner while
conductingthesubjectenquiry.WeaccordinglyanswerthePointNos.5and6
infavouroftheplaintiffandagainstthedefendants.
63. Thelearnedcounselfortheplaintiffpointedoutthattheimpugnedorder
dated 05.12.2000 is also in utter violation of Rule 38 of the Rules and
RegulationsinasmuchasitwaspassedbyaCommitteeoftwoMembersbut
notbyaCommitteeofthreeMembersasspecificallyenvisagedtherein.The
learnedcounselfor theplaintiff furtherdrewtheattentionof thisCourtto the
letter dated04.12.2000 addressedby the thirdMember, namely,Sri Kamal
Morarka,tothePresidentoftheBoard,whoisoneoftheMembersoftheso-
called Committee, whereby he sought some more time to go through the
reportoftheCBIaswellasthereportofdefendant2.Thelearnedcounselfor
the plaintiff thereforehas contendedthat notwithstanding the said letter, the
othertwoMemberswentaheadinconductingtheMeetingon05.12.2000and
passed the impugned order on that day itself in the absence of the third
Memberforthereasonsbestknowntoitwhicharenotexfacieapparentinthe
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
58/73
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
59/73
the evidence he may lead or produce and thereafter take such
action as the Committee may in its discretion deem ft.
In conducting the enquiry against the offending player, the
CommitteeshallfollowtherulesofNaturalJustice.
[Emphasisisours]
AcarefulreadingofthispartoftheRulemanifestlyreflectsthatthroughoutthe
phrasetheCommitteeisused.ObviouslytheCommitteeconsistedofthree
Membersincluding thePresident of theBoard. Thatbeing thepurport of its
ownRulesandRegulations,theCommitteecouldnotbepermittedtoconvene
ameeting in theabsenceofanyof itsMembers. If forany reason, such a
meetingwasconvenedincontraventionoftheRule,theresultofsuchmeeting
beingnotin consonancewith thatRuleshouldnotbepermittedtobeacted
uponbeingillegalandanullityintheeyesoflaw.TheCourtbelowfailedto
considerthe controversyonthispoint inthe rightperspective.It istherefore
clear that the impugnedorder dated 05.12.2000 given based on the illegal
report dated 24.11.2000 of the defendant 2 having been passed by the
CommitteeconsistingonlytwoMembersisillegal,invalid,arbitraryandnullity
intheeyesoflaw.
66. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has further placed reliance on a
Judgment of the Supreme Court in
insupportof the
saidcontention.Therein,theSupremeCourtheld:
20.Counselfortheappellantarguedthattheexpresspowerof
theVice-Chancellortoregulatetheworkandconductofofficersofthe
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
60/73
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
61/73
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
62/73
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
63/73
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
64/73
and thesameare liable tobesetaside.The learnedcounsel for theplaintiff
alsohascontendedthat the impugnedorderdated05.12.2000,havingbeen
passedmerelyplacingrelianceontheillegalenquiryreportdated24.11.2000,
isalsoinutterviolationoftheRule38inasmuchasitwaspassedbythe
CommitteeconsistingoftwopersonsbutnotbyaCommitteeofthreepersons
as specifically envisaged therein. The learned counsel for the plaintiff thus
asserted that the enquiry report dated 24.11.2000 of defendant 2 and the
impugned order dated 05.12.2000 passed by the incompetent Committee
consistingoftwoMembersareillegal,arbitrary,invalidandnullityintheeyes
of lawand the cannot beacteduponandtherebynoadverseconsequence
would flow therefrom against the plaintiff. The learned counsel has also
attacked theimpugnedorderdated05.12.2000 imposingthe punishmentas
detailedthereinonthegroundthattherewasnovalidandlegalbasisfordoing
sointhelightoftheothersubmissionsandthatthesameisliabletobeset
asideonthisscorealso.
71. The learnedcounsel for thedefendants haspointed out that after the
receipt of the report dated 24.11.2000, the Committee consisting of three
Members,infact,convenedameetingon28.11.2000andaffordedafulland
complete opportunity to the plaintiff to put forth his case before it and
thereafter only, the Committee consisting of two Members passed the
impugned order dated 05.12.2000 which again is in accordance with the
amendedRulesandRegulationsoftheBoardandthereforenoviolationofany
prescribed procedure canbecomplained of; and that both the reportdated
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
65/73
24.11.2000 and the impugned order dated 05.12.2000 are legal and valid,
whichaspectwasconsideredandupheldbytheCourtbelowandthereforethe
samefindingdoesnotwarrantinterferencefromthisCourtinthisappeal.
72. At the cost of repetition, we may state here that we have already
recordedfindings supraonPointNos.2to7 infavouroftheplaintiffinteralia
holding that the Board got no power to appoint defendant 2 as the
Commissioner to conduct the subject enquiry against the plaintiff under its
unamendedRulesandRegulationswhichwere in forceon29.08.2000; that
theappointmentofdefendantastheCommissionerisillegal,invalidandultra
viresoftheRulesandRegulationsoftheBoard;thatthedefendant2asthe
Commissionerwasnotadeptandunsuitabletoconductthesubjectenquiryon
the ground that he was an Advocate who was advising the Board at the
relevantpointof time that he lacked experience inconducting the kindand
natureofsubjectenquiry;thatthedefendant2violatedtheprinciplesofnatural
justiceduringthecourseofenquiry;thatthedefendanthadnotconductedany
independent enquiry to prove the allegation of match fixing against the
plaintiff;andthattheimpugnedorderdated05.12.2000isillegal,invalidand
arbitraryhavingbeenpassedbyanincompetentCommitteeconsistingoftwo
MembersinsteadofthreeMembers.
73. In the lightof thesefindingsrecordedbyushereinabovewhichare in
favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, the effect of the enquiry
reportdated24.11.2000submittedbythedefendant2andtheimpugnedorder
dated05.12.2000passedbytheCommitteeconsistingoftwoMemberscan,
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
66/73
undertheabovecircumstances,besaidtobethattheyhavenolegalforcein
theeyesoflawbeingnullity,illegalandinvalid.
74. Inthiscontext,referencemaybemadetoaJudgmentoftheSupreme
Courtin .Therein,
theSupremeCourtilluminatinglyexplainedtheeffectoftheproceedingswhich
arenullityintheeyesoflaw,itreadsasfollows:
6. It is a fundamental principle well established that a
decree passed by a courtwithout jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its
invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be
enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in
collateral proceedings.
Adefectofjurisdiction,whetheritispecuniaryorterritorial,orwhetherit
is in respect of the subject-matter of the action, strikes at the very
authorityofthecourttopassanydecree,andsuchadefectcannotbe
cured even by consent of parties. If the question now under
consideration fell tobedetermined only on the application of general
principlesgoverningthematter,therecanbenodoubtthattheDistrict
Court of Monghyr was coram non judice, and that its judgment and
decreewouldbenullities.Thequestioniswhat istheeffectofSection
11oftheSuitsValuationActonthisposition.
[Emphasisisours]
A perusal of this Judgment inter alia clearly demonstrates that the
proceedingswhicharenullityintheeyesoflawcannotbecuredevenbythe
consent of parties. In the present case, the reportdated 24.11.2000 of the
defendant 2 and the impugned order dated 05.12.2000 being nullity in the
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
67/73
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
68/73
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
69/73
78. Inviewoftheforegoingdiscussionandplacingrelianceonthecaselaw
referredtohereinaboveonthispoint,weareoftheconsideredviewthatboth
theenquiryreportdated24.11.2000ofdefendant2and the impugnedorder
dated 05.12.2000 of the Committee consisting of twoMembers are, illegal,
invalidandnullandvoidintheeyesoflawandcannot,underanystretchof
imagination, be countenanced and acted upon. We answer Point No.8
accordinglyinfavouroftheplaintiffandagainstthedefendants.
79. The learned counsel for theplaintiff has submitted that theplaintiff is
entitledtoseekthereliefsasspecificallyprayedforinthesuitinthelightofthe
submissionsmadehereinaboveontheothercontentiouspointsandtherefore
prayed that the appeal is liable to be allowed by duly setting aside the
impugned judgement and decree dated 27.08.2003 passed by the Court
below.
80. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the defendants has volubly
contendedthatasthesuititselfisnotmaintainable,theplaintiffisnotlegally
entitledtoseekanyrelieffromthisCourtastheCourtbelowconsideredallthe
aspectsofthematterminutelyandultimatelydismissedthesuit.Thelearned
counsel for the defendants has therefore urged this Court to dismiss the
appealaffirmingtheJudgmentanddecreepassedbytheCourtbelow.
81. Inthelightoftheaboveprayerssoughtforbytheplaintiffandinviewof
the contentions of the respective parties, we have given our anxious
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
70/73
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
71/73
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
72/73
7/29/2019 Mohammed Azharuddin Judgment
73/73