B.D.GUPTA versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [1973] 2 S.C.R. 323 · Decided: 18-09-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. GROVER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
B 
B.D.GUPTA 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
September 18, 1972 
[A. N. GROVER, M. H. BEG AND A. K. MUICHERJEA, JJ.J 
323 
Punjab Civil Servius (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952 (V-ol. /, 
Part.J)-Rules 7.2 and 1.3-Punishment of Censure-Show cause notice 
must indicate precisely the charges and a/legations-Opportunity to sl1ow. 
cause necessary kfore the government prescribes what proportion . of the 
pay and allowances should be paid to the delinquem officer where the sus-
pension is held to be unjustifiable. 
In December, 1954, the appellant was arrested and prosecuted under 
sectif'n 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 
He was suspended 
in the same month. .In November, 1956, the appellant was served with 
a cbarge-•aeet under Rue 7 (2) for the departmental proceedings to be 
held on two charges of taking illegal gratification. 
The appellant sub-
mitted bis explanation on December, 18, 1956. 
The 
Enquiry Officer 
exonerated the appellant of charge 1 (a). In 1960, the appellant was 
disonarged in the criminal case. The appellant was, thereafter, dismissed 
from service, on the finding of the Enquiry Officer. that charge, 1 (b) was 
proved. The High Court of Punjab quashed the dismissal order. Aftler 
reinstatement, the appellant was served with another suspension order in 
May, 1963. A fresh enquiry for charge 1 (b) was ordered in 1965 buMhe 
-same was later on withdraW)l. On October 26. 1966, the appellant was 
again directed to show-cause why be should not be censured. for his un-
satisfactory explanation dated December 18, 1956. In reply to the sh0w-
cause notice in November, 1956, the appellant's explanation was found 
unsatisfactory and a sentence of censure was imposed on him. 
Instead 
of granting full pay for the suspension period the authorities ordered that 
the appet:ant should not be paid more than the 
subsistance allowance 
received by hiin during the period Of suspension. The w,tit_petition filed 
against the said orders by appellant was dismissed by the single Judge of 
the Punjab High Court, and then by the Division Bench. 
Allowing the appeal. 
HELD : The show-cause notice was vague, 
it did not indicate whe-
ther the explanation was called fur regarding charge 1 (a) or charge 1 (b). 
As regards charge l(b) it was finally withdrawn. The show-cause notice 
did not indicate which part of the explanation 
dated 18-12-1956 
was 
unsatisfactory. In what way it was unsatisfactory and what was the mate-
rial before the Government on which it was thought that t~e explanation 
was unsatisfactory, The notice being vague, the appellant did not -get any 
chance at all to show cause that he did not deserve a censure upon his con-
duct. The appellant was not given an opportunity to -~how that the su5· 
pe•1sion order-against him had been unjustified and that he was entitled to 
full pay and allowances. Under Rule 7 (3), the Govt. has to m~ two 
decisions (i) whether the suspension was justified and (ii) what portion 
of the pay and allowances should be paid to the delinquent officer? 
[328 CJ 
. 
HELD : Further that the order regarding pay affects the pecuni.ary 
•nierest of the appellant. No real opportunity v.as given to the appellant 
to make an effective representation against the ·said order. ·The orde-r.·re-
garding pay during suspension period was not merely consequential order 
to the first order. [331 BJ 
· 
324 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1973] 2 s.c.R. 
M. Gopala Krishan Naidu v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1968] 1 S.C.R. 
355, relied upon. 
State of Assam and ano(her v. Raghav Ra;gopalach.ar! Ci':'il Appeal No. 
1561 and 1562 of 1966 decided on October 6, 1967, d1sbngmshed on l'acts. 
The appeal was allowed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2129 of 
196!1. 
Appeal by special leave from the order dated January 13, 
1969 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, at Chandigarh, in 
L.F.A. No. 6 of 1969. 
B. Sen and G. D. Gupta, for the appellant. 
V. C. Mahajan and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MuKHERJEA, J. This appeal on special leave is from an 01der 
of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryanr. High Court 
dismissing summarily an appeal directed against a judgment and 
order of a Single Judge of that Court by which a petition of the 
appellant under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India was 
dis-
missed. 
The matter arises in connection with a disciplinary pro-
ceeding under the Punjab 
Civil 
Services 
(Punishment 
and 
A

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.