1986 (4) TMI 340 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether it is necessary to give a second show cause notice against the punishment before the same was imposed on the respondent and to furnish him with a copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer in view of the amendment of clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India by the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976 and the consequential change brought about in Rule 15(4) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965? Held that - Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court were not justified in holding that the order of dismissal was vitiated as the respondent was not given a second opportunity to make representation against the punishment of dismissal before the same was imposed on him. In the circumstances, we set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court but, as in disposing the appeal the Division Bench has not considered the judgment of the learned Single Judge on merits of the case, we send the case back on remand to the Division Bench for the disposal of the appeal on merits after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard. This appeal is allowed

Summary

Issues:
- Whether a second show cause notice against the punishment is necessary before imposition?
- Whether the respondent was deprived of an opportunity to show cause against the punishment?
- Whether the order of dismissal was vitiated due to lack of opportunity for representation against the penalty?

Analysis:
The case involved a Special Leave Petition where the only question was whether a second show cause notice against the punishment was necessary before imposition, considering the amendment of Article 311 of the Constitution and Rule 15(4) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The respondent, a government servant, faced dismissal from service due to established charges of misconduct. The Disciplinary Authority dismissed the respondent, which was later altered to compulsory retirement by the Appellate Authority. A Writ Petition by the respondent led to the High Court quashing the dismissal order, citing lack of opportunity for the respondent to show cause against the punishment. The Division Bench agreed that the respondent was deprived of this opportunity, modifying the order to allow the Disciplinary Authority to proceed with fresh notice for representation against the proposed penalty.

The Supreme Court noted that the amendment to Article 311 of the Constitution removed the requirement of a second opportunity for representation on the proposed penalty. The Court highlighted that the respondent was informed of the charges and given a reasonable opportunity to be heard, satisfying the amended clause. The Court emphasized that the respondent was provided with a copy of the Inquiry Officer's report after the dismissal order, enabling an appeal to the Appellate Authority. The amended Rule 15(4) of the Central Civil Services Rules also clarified that no second opportunity for representation on the penalty was necessary, especially in cases of dismissal.

Referring to a previous judgment, the Court reiterated that post-amendment, there is no provision for a government servant to claim a second opportunity for representation against the penalty. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, directing a remand to the Division Bench for a merit-based disposal of the appeal after giving both parties an opportunity to be heard. Ultimately, the Court allowed the appeal with no order as to costs, upholding the dismissal decision and emphasizing the sufficiency of the initial opportunity for representation provided to the respondent.