1963 (2) TMI 45 - SC - Indian Laws

Scope and effect of the provisions contained in Article 311 (2) of the Constitution questioned Held that - The High Court was in error in coming to the conclusion that the order of demotion Passed against the respondent in the present case was invalid on the ground that the respondent had not been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the said action under Art. 311(2). The appeal accordingly succeeds, the order passed by the High Court is set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Scope and effect of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
2. Whether the respondent was given a reasonable opportunity to show cause under Article 311(2).
3. Validity of the disciplinary proceedings and the subsequent order of demotion.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Scope and Effect of Article 311(2) of the Constitution:
The appeal raises a short question about the scope and effect of the provisions contained in Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Article 311(2) provides that no person specified in Article 311(1) shall be dismissed, removed, or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. It is well-settled that a public officer against whom disciplinary proceedings are intended to be taken is entitled to two opportunities before disciplinary action is finally taken against him.

2. Reasonable Opportunity to Show Cause:
The respondent contended that he had not been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action ultimately taken against him under Article 311(2). The High Court accepted this contention, holding that the notice issued under Article 311(2) must show that the dismissing authority has applied its mind to the findings of the Enquiring officer and has accepted the said findings against the delinquent officer. The High Court further held that unless these conclusions are communicated to the delinquent officer, he would not be able to make an adequate or effective representation.

The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with this view. It held that it is desirable for the dismissing authority to indicate its concurrence with the conclusions of the enquiring officer in the second notice, but the failure to expressly state that the dismissing authority has accepted the findings does not introduce such an infirmity in the proceedings as to make the final order invalid. The Court emphasized that the issuance of the notice indicating the provisional conclusions of the dismissing authority as to the punishment clearly implies that the findings recorded against the officer by the enquiring officer have been accepted.

3. Validity of the Disciplinary Proceedings and Order of Demotion:
The Supreme Court noted that the enquiry officer found some charges fully established and others partially established against the respondent. The Enquiry officer recommended withholding three increments from the respondent's pay. However, the Governor of Assam decided to reduce the respondent in rank permanently. The respondent challenged this order, and the High Court found that the notice did not meet the requirements of Article 311(2).

The Supreme Court held that the failure to state expressly that the dismissing authority has accepted the findings recorded against the delinquent officer does not justify the conclusion that the notice given does not afford a reasonable opportunity under Article 311(2). The Court also added that if the dismissing authority differs from the findings recorded in the enquiry report, it is necessary that its provisional conclusions be specified in the second notice.

The Court referred to several precedents, including the Federal Court decision in The High Commissioner of India v. I. M. Lal and the Supreme Court decision in Khem Chand v. The Union of India, to support its conclusion that the findings of the enquiring officer must be communicated to the delinquent officer, but it is not mandatory to state that the dismissing authority has accepted those findings.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court was in error in holding that the order of demotion was invalid on the ground that the respondent had not been given a reasonable opportunity under Article 311(2). The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the writ petition filed by the respondent was dismissed. There was no order as to costs.