9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Article 311(2) of the Indian Constitution. 2. Reasonable opportunity to show cause against proposed action. 3. Validity of the dismissal order. 4. Procedural fairness and adherence to service rules. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Compliance with Article 311(2) of the Indian Constitution: The primary issue was whether the appellant was given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him, as mandated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that Article 311(2) provides a statutory protection to government servants, ensuring that they are not dismissed, removed, or reduced in rank without being given a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves. This protection is a constitutional safeguard, converting the procedural requirements of service rules into statutory rights. 2. Reasonable Opportunity to Show Cause Against Proposed Action: The Court elaborated that the reasonable opportunity envisaged by Article 311(2) includes: - An opportunity to deny guilt and establish innocence, which requires the government servant to be informed of the charges and the evidence against them. - An opportunity to defend oneself by cross-examining witnesses and presenting one's own evidence. - An opportunity to make representations against the proposed punishment, which should be communicated to the government servant after the enquiry is over and a tentative decision on the punishment is made. The Court found that the appellant was not given this reasonable opportunity. Although he was served with a charge sheet and appeared before the Enquiry Officer, he was not given a chance to show cause against the proposed punishment after the charges were established. 3. Validity of the Dismissal Order: The Court held that the dismissal order issued by the Deputy Commissioner on December 17, 1951, was inoperative as it did not comply with the constitutional requirement of giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed dismissal. The Court emphasized that the appellant should have been given a further opportunity to make his case against the punishment of dismissal after the charges were proved and a tentative decision on the punishment was made. 4. Procedural Fairness and Adherence to Service Rules: The Court noted that the procedural fairness required by Article 311(2) was not adhered to in this case. The enquiry conducted by Shri Mahipal Singh and the subsequent report by Shri J. B. Tandon did not provide the appellant with the necessary opportunity to defend himself at both stages of the disciplinary process. The Court also highlighted that the appellant's request for the enquiry to be conducted by a Gazetted Officer was denied, and he was not given a copy of the report by Shri Mahipal Singh, if any was made. Conclusion: The Court concluded that the appellant's dismissal was not in accordance with the constitutional protection provided under Article 311(2). The Court set aside the order of the Single Judge, decreed the appellant's suit, and declared that the order of dismissal was inoperative. The appellant was entitled to costs throughout all courts, and any court fees due from him were to be paid. The Court assessed the appellant's fees at Rs. 250. Appeal Allowed.
|
