9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent was given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself before being compulsorily retired under Article 353 of the Civil Service Regulations. 2. Whether the departmental enquiry complied with the requirements of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. 3. Validity of the second notice served on the respondent. 4. Validity of the final order of compulsory retirement. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Reasonable Opportunity to Defend: The core issue in this appeal is whether the respondent was given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself before being compulsorily retired. The respondent challenged the compulsory retirement order by filing a suit, claiming it was invalid and ultra vires. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the respondent had been given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. However, the High Court reversed this finding, concluding that the constitutional provisions of Article 311 were not complied with, as the enquiry officer did not hold an oral enquiry or allow the respondent to lead oral evidence. 2. Compliance with Article 311(2): Article 311(2) mandates that no government employee shall be dismissed, removed, or reduced in rank without being given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed action. The High Court found that the departmental enquiry suffered from serious infirmities, including the failure to hold an oral enquiry and the denial of an opportunity for the respondent to lead oral evidence. The Supreme Court agreed with this finding, emphasizing that the enquiry officer's failure to hold an oral enquiry and allow the respondent to examine his doctors introduced a fatal infirmity in the enquiry, thereby violating Article 311(2). 3. Validity of the Second Notice: The High Court also held that the second notice served on the respondent was defective, contributing to the invalidity of the compulsory retirement order. The Supreme Court did not delve deeply into this issue, as it found the enquiry itself to be fundamentally flawed due to the lack of a reasonable opportunity for the respondent to defend himself. 4. Validity of the Final Order: The final order of compulsory retirement was challenged on the grounds that it did not show that the appellant had considered the respondent's explanation in response to the second notice. The High Court found this to be another reason for the order's invalidity. However, the Supreme Court focused on the primary issue of the enquiry's compliance with Article 311(2) and did not find it necessary to address this point in detail. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, concluding that the enquiry conducted by Mr. Mehta violated the mandatory provisions of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, which required an oral enquiry if the respondent so desired. The failure to conduct such an enquiry deprived the respondent of a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, as required by Article 311(2). Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the respondent's suit was allowed, entitling him to a decree for Rs. 37,237.
|
