LexHUKUM CHAND MALHOTRA versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
DeceuJber :ra. 8!l2 SUPREME COURT BEPORTS [1959] Supp. HUKUM CHAND MALHOTRA v. UNION OF INDIA (S. R. DAS, c. J., s. K. DAS, P. B. GAJENDI\AGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO and M. HrnAYATur,LAH, JJ.) Govcrn1ncnt Strvant-Acccptanci: of privnlc cu1ployn1c11t 1vithu11t. Govcrnnzcnt's sanction-5/zoie.: causi: uolicc-J>roposal of altcrnalivc pu11islancnt-Lcgality of 11oticc-J7alidity of order of rc11ioi•al jro111 st'rtrice-Constitntion of India, Art. JII(2). The appellant, a Government servant, \vas charged \vith having, contrary to the rules governing the conclitions of his service, accepted private e1nployment \vithout sanction of Govern1nent while he \vas still in Govern1nent service. l'he Officer who held an enquiry against him found the charge to be true and submitted a report. On April 14, 1954, a notice was issued to the appellant asking hin1 to sho\v cause in accordance with the proYisions of Art. 3u(2) of the Constitution in the follo\ving terms: " ......... On a careful consideration of the re- port, and in particular of the conclusions rcachcJ by the l~nquir ing Officer in respect of the charges framed against you, the President is provisionally of opinion that a major penalty, viz., dismissal, removal or reduction should be enforced on you. Be- fore he takes that action, he desires to give you an oi)portunity of sho\ving cause against the action proposed to be taken ...... ". The appellant then showed cause and on October l, 1954, the President passed an order reino\·ing the appellant from scr\'ice with effect from that date. It was contended for the appellant, inter alia, that the show cause notice dated April 14, 1954, stated all the three punishments mentioned in Art. 3u(2) and that inas- much as it did not particularise the actual or exact pu~ishment proposed to be imposed on the appellant, the notice did not comply with the essential requirements of Art. 3u(2) and, there. fore, the final order of removal passed on October, 1954, was not a valid order. Hdd, that the show cause notice dated April q, 1954, did not contrayene the prO\"isions of Art. 3u(2) of the Constitution. There is nothing \vrong in principle in the punishing authority tentati,·ely forming the opinion that the charges proved merit any one of the three major penalties and on that footing asking the Government servant concerned to sho\v cause against the punishment proposed to be taken in the alternative in regard to him, because it gives the Government servant better opportunity to sho'v cause against each of those puitishments being intlicted on hin1, \vhich he \vou1d not have had if only the severest punish1ncnt had been mentioned and a lessc·r punish- n1ent not mentioned in the notice had been inflicted on hin1. (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 893 High Commissioner for India and High Commissioner for Pakistan v. I. M. Lall, (1948) L.R. 75 I.A. 225 and Khem Chand v. Union of India, [1958] S.C.R. 1080, explained. ]atindra Nath Biswas v. R. Gupta, (1953) 58 C.W.N. 128; Dayanidhi Rath v. B. S. Mohanty, A.LR. 1955 Orissa 33 and Lakshmi Narain Gupta v. A. N. Puri, A.LR. 1954 Cal. 335, distinguished. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 288 of 1958. Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment and ordet dated December 3, 1956, of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench) at Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal No. 25-D of 1956, arising out of the judgment and order dated April 9, 1956, of the said High Court - (Circuit Bench) at Delhi in Civil Writ No. 8-D of 1955. N. 0. Chatterjee and R. S. Narula, for the appellant. M. 0. Setalvad, Attorney-Generalfor India, B. Sen and T. M. Sen, for the respondent. 1958. December 12. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. K. DAS, J.-This is an appeal by special leave and the only question for decision is if the order of the President dated October 1, 1954, removing the appel- lant from service with effect from that date is invalid, as claimed by the appellant, by reason of a contraven- tion of the provisions of Art. 311(2) of the Oonstitu- tion. The short facts are these. The appellant stated that he joined permanent Government service on April 4, 1924. In 1947, before partition, he was em- ployed as Assistant Secretary, Frontier Corps of Militia and Scouts in the then North-Western Frontier Pro- vince, under ·the administrative control of the External Affairs Department of the Government of India. The appellant stated that the post whi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.