DEWAN SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER

Citation: [1976] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 630 · Decided: 07-05-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

630 
A 
DEWAN SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 
May 7, 1976 
B 
(H. R. KHANNA, V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.J 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Natural ju:i;tice-Metuling of-If n1andatory-Punjab Pancliayat Sa1:1itis and 
Zilhi Parishad Act 1961-Sec. 124(2)-Reasonable opportunity before disr1iss~ 
ing lln en1ployee.. 
The appellant was a Veterinary Compounder serving under the 
Panchayat 
Samiti, Hansi. The Zilla Parishad Tribunal transferred him from Hansi to Sing--
Jif111i. 
The Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti. Hansi. requested the Chairman 
of the Zilla Parishad to reconsider the decision of transfer. The Chairn1an of 
Zilla Parishad Tribunal served a notice on the appellant to show cause why he· 
should not be dismissed for not having handed over the charge of ihe dispensary 
to the person who \Vas appointed in his place and also on the ground that when 
the Secretary of the Zilla Parishad Tribunal with the help of the compounder, 
\Vho \Vas directed to take charge from the appellant, was preparing a list of stock, 
the appellant and others entered the office and one of the persons out of the 
appellant's group snatched the papers from the Secretary and manhandled him. 
The appeJlant submitted an interim explanation and reserved his right to submit 
a final reply after inspection of certain records was given to hi1n. 
The Zilla 
Parishatl 'fribunal did not give any opportunity to the appellant for inspection-
of record nor sent any communication to him rejecting the request givmg any 
justifiable reasons. 
However, the appellant was served with a letter dismis~ing 
him from service. 
Section 124(2) 
of the Punjab Panchayat Sam1tis & Zilla 
Parishad Act, 1961, authorises the Tribunal to impose any punishment including • 
the punishment of dismissal on any servant of the Panchayat Samiti or ZBla 
Parishad. The proviso, however, requires the Tribunal before passing any order 
of dismissal or removal tO"'-give a notice to the servant to show can11e against tho: 
action proposed to be taken against him. 
The appellant filed a \Vrit petition in the High Court challenging the dismis-
s;1l order. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. 
Allowing the appeal by special leave, 
HELD: (!) A perusal of s. 124(2) goes to show that before any act10n is 
taken for dismissal or re.moval of an employee the Tribunal has (o enquire into 
his conduct justifying such action. 
This enquiry must necessarily be made in 
the presence of the employee giving him an opportunity to rebut the ailegations 
made against him. 
It is only after affording him a reasonable opportunity to 
rebut the allegations in the charge and after the Tribunal is satisfied that the 
misconduct is established, the question of final punitive action either of dismissal 
or removal has to be considered. The employee mu<;t be given a full and fair 
reasonable opportunity to meet the charges. 
[633D-E1 
(2) Tn the instant case apart from giving the show cause notice no other 
communication was made to the appellant except the order of. dismissal. This is 
a clear case where the reasonable opportunity envisaged under s. 124(2) has not 
been afforded to the appellant for making an effective representation to establish 
his innocence. Even in respect of the incident of 15-8-1967, the appellant "'as 
acquitted in a criminal case lodged against him. Jn the instant case the pre-
visions of s. 124(2) which embody the principles of natural justice and v•hich 
are of a mandatory character have been violated, vitiating the order of dismissal. 
[633G, 634A-CJ 
( 3) In the ordinary ~ourse it would have been open to the authority to in-
stitute a fresh enquiry after the reinstatemept. But in this case, that procedure· 
\Vas not permitted because the appellant was dismissed in December, 1967, and 
·• 
' 
; 
' 
) 
• 
DBW AN SINGH v. HARYANA (Goswami, !.) 
6 31 
has been out of employment for over 8 years. Secondly, he does not have mauy 
years to •erve. Thirdly, tho •eriom allegations regarding the incident of IS-8-1%7 
have not been fomid to be e<tabli>hoo in a judicial trial. The Court, therefore, 
quashed tbe order of di>misoal and directed that tbe appa!lant should be treated 
on leave without pay and further directed that no furtlwr enquiry into the alle-
~alions forming tbe subject matter of charge should be made. 
[634C-E] 
ClvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Qvil Appeal No. 27 of 1971. 
(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 21st 
May 1970 _of the Punjab &

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