1954 (11) TMI 42 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order removing the appellant from service.
2. Compliance with Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
3. Compliance with Article 166 of the Constitution of India.
4. Validity of the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Commissioner.
5. Necessity of sanction under Article 20 of the Covenant of the United State of Travancore and Cochin.
6. Compliance with Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Order Removing the Appellant from Service
The appeal was directed against an order dismissing an application for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Government of the united State of Travancore-Cochin removing the appellant from service. The appellant contended that the enquiry conducted was illegal and void. However, the Court found that none of the points raised by the appellant were of substantial character and concerned matters of mere form. The Court held that the order of removal was validly made by the Rajpramukh and expressed according to Article 166 of the Constitution, thus satisfying the requirements of Article 311(1).

2. Compliance with Article 311 of the Constitution of India
The Court examined whether the appellant was given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed. It was established that the appellant was given reasonable opportunity at both stages of the enquiry. He was allowed to inspect relevant files, defend himself with legal representation, and was provided with the Enquiry Commissioner's report. Despite being granted extensions to show cause, the appellant failed to do so. The Court concluded that the requirements of Article 311(2) were fully satisfied.

3. Compliance with Article 166 of the Constitution of India
The appellant argued that the show cause notice was invalid as it was not expressed in the name of the Rajpramukh. The Court held that the notice issued by the Chief Secretary on behalf of the Government was in substantial compliance with the directory provisions of Article 166. It was further noted that the appellant accepted the notice and requested extensions, indicating compliance with the procedural requirements.

4. Validity of the Enquiry Conducted by the Enquiry Commissioner
The appellant contended that the order appointing the Enquiry Commissioner was not in proper form and that the enquiry was not conducted according to the Act. The Court found that the enquiry was conducted following a resolution by the Council of Ministers, which was presumed to have been communicated to the Rajpramukh. The appellant participated in the enquiry, defended himself, and was given a reasonable opportunity to do so. The Court held that the enquiry was valid and the appellant's participation indicated compliance with procedural fairness.

5. Necessity of Sanction under Article 20 of the Covenant of the United State of Travancore and Cochin
The appellant argued that the proceedings required the previous sanction of the Rajpramukh under Article 20 of the Covenant. The Court concurred with the High Court's interpretation that Article 20 pertains to civil and criminal proceedings before courts and does not apply to departmental proceedings. Therefore, no sanction was required for the enquiry conducted against the appellant.

6. Compliance with Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution of India
The appellant claimed non-compliance with Article 320(3)(c), which mandates consultation with the Public Service Commission in disciplinary matters. The Court noted that the Commission was consulted before the appellant was asked to show cause. Since the appellant did not show cause, no further consultation was necessary. The Court rejected the argument that the Commission should be consulted on every review petition, stating that such extensive consultation is not envisaged by Article 320.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the enquiry and subsequent removal of the appellant from service were conducted in compliance with constitutional and procedural requirements. The appellant was given ample opportunity to defend himself, and the procedural safeguards under Articles 311 and 320 were duly observed. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.