9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the "Show Cause notice" dated 26 October 1966. 2. Validity of the order dated 27 February 1967 withholding pay in excess of subsistence allowance during the suspension period. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the "Show Cause notice" dated 26 October 1966: The appellant contended that the "Show Cause notice" was too vague to enable him to give an effective reply. The Supreme Court accepted this contention as substantial. The Memorandum containing the "Show Cause notice" stated: "Your explanation dated the 18th December, 1956, in reply to the statements of charges and allegations has been considered and found to be unsatisfactory." The Court noted that the notice did not clearly indicate which part of the appellant's explanation was unsatisfactory or on what materials the Government based its dissatisfaction. The notice was deemed vague as it did not provide the appellant with a real opportunity to defend himself against the complaint that his previous explanation had been unsatisfactory. Consequently, the order of censure passed on him was held to be bad and liable to be struck down. 2. Validity of the order dated 27 February 1967 withholding pay in excess of subsistence allowance during the suspension period: The appellant argued that the order withholding pay was passed without giving him an opportunity to make a representation against it. The relevant order was passed under Rule 7.3 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, which requires the authority to form an opinion about whether the Government servant has been fully exonerated or whether the suspension was wholly unjustified. The Supreme Court held that before forming such an opinion, it was incumbent upon the authority to afford an opportunity to the appellant to make suitable representations. The Court referred to its previous judgment in M. Gopala Krishna Naidu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which emphasized that orders affecting an employee financially must be passed after an objective consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances and after giving the person concerned a full opportunity to make out his case. The Court found that the appellant did not get a real opportunity to defend himself against Charge 1(b) as the proceedings were abandoned by the Government. Therefore, the appellant did not get an opportunity to show that the suspension order was unjustified and that he was entitled to full pay and allowances. The Court distinguished the case from the unreported decision in State of Assam and Anr. v. Raghava Rajagopalachari, as the appellant in the present case was not given a chance to get himself fully exonerated due to the withdrawal of proceedings. Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the judgment and order of the High Court were set aside, and the orders dated 27 February 1967 were quashed. The appellant was awarded the costs of the appeal as well as the costs incurred below.
|
