KHEM CHAND versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1958] 1 S.C.R. 1080 · Decided: 13-12-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

1!JfJ1 
Jagannath B~litra 
nnd Otliers 
v. 
Raja 
Harihar Singh 
Mardaraj 
BAramarbaro Ro, 
.1Ihtv,;umt1 J. 
19.il 
Doc•mlw J.j 
1080 
SUPRE.ME UOURT REPORTS 
[1958] 
Act which applied to the dispute which arose between the 
appellants and the respondent read together with the relevant 
provisions in regard to the procedure, penalties, etc., contain-
ed in the 1948 Act did give 
jurisdiction to the Revenue 
Officer to entertain the dispute between the parties. This 
contention of the respondent also therefore fails. 
We are therefore, of opinion that the judgment of the 
High Court was clearly wrong and is liable to be set aside. 
We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the order 
made by the High Court, and restore the orders passed by 
the Revenue Officer in the O.T.P. Act Cases Nos. 21 to 25 of 
1952, 26 to 28 of 1952, 29 to 32 of 1952 and 33 to 41 to 1952. 
The respondent will pay the appellants' costs of this appeal 
as also of the writ petition in the High Court. The State of 
Orissa will, of course. bear and pay its own costs. 
Appeal allowed. 
KHEMCHAND 
v. 
THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
(S. R. DAS C. J., VENKATARAMA A.IYAR, S. K. DAS, 
A K. SARKAR and VIVIAN BOSE JJ .) 
Constitution, InterpTetation of-'Reasonable opportunity of 
shoiving cause', Meaning of-Punishment of dismissai on Gov-
ernment Servant-Constitutional Protection-Procedure-Con-
stitution of India, Art. 311(2). 
'Reasonable opportunity to show 
cause' in Art. 311(2) of 
the Constitution contemplates not merely the opportunity to 
do so at the enquiry stage but also when the competent autho-
rity, as a result of the enquiry, proposes to inflict one of the 
three punishments mentioned in the Article on the delinquent 
servant. Such reasonable opportunity must, 
therefore, in-
clude,-
(1) opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his inno-
cence, which means that he must be told what the charges 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1081 
against him are and the allegations on which such charges are 
based; 
(2) oppcrtunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced 
against him and examine himself or other w~tnesses on his be-
half and. 
(3) opportunity to show that the proposed 
punishment 
would not be the proper punishment to inflict, which means 
that the tentative determination of the competent authority to 
inflict one of the three punishments must be communicated to 
him. 
High Commissioner for India v. I.M. Lall, L.R. (1948) 75 
I.A. 225, explained and relied on. 
Secretary of State for India v. I. M. Lall, (1945) F.C.R. 103, 
not followed. 
Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. The Union of India, Civil Appeal 
No. 65 of 1957, decided on November 1, 1957. and R. Venkata 
Rao v. Secretary of State for India, L.R. (1936) 64 I.A. 5, refer-
red to. 
The procedure followed in such cases must, therefore, in-
clude the giving of two notices to the servant, one at the en-
quiry stage and the other when the competent authority, as a 
result of the enquiry, tentatively determines to inflict a parti· 
cular punishment on him. 
Consequently, in a case where the Government Servant 
sought to be proceeded against for misconduct was served w~th 
a charge-sheet and appeared before two officers conducting the 
enquiry, one after the other, l:ut no notice waii served upon 
him when the competent authority accepted the report and 
confirmed the opinion ·that the punishment of dismissal should 
be inflicted on him, and no cause could. therefore. be shown 
by him, the provision of Art. 311(2) had not been fully com-
plied with and the order of dismissal passed against him must 
be declared void and inoperative. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JuR1sorcnoN: Civil Appeal No. 353 
of 1957. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree 
dated November l, 1955, of the Punjab High Court (Circuit 
Bench) at Delhi in Regular Second Appeal No. 28-D of 1955, 
arising out of the judgment and decree dated December 31, 
I 954, of the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge at Delhi 
in Regular Civil Appeal No. 685 of 1954, affirming the judg-
ment and decree of Subordinatet Judge Third Class Delhi in 
Suit No. 273/213 of 1953. 
Janardhan Sharma, for the appellant. 
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, R. Ga11a-
pathy Iyer and R. fl. Dl1ebar, for the respondents, 
J,/P(D)3SCI--4 
195'! 
Khem O/wnt>. 
v. 
'l'lle Union of India 
and Other. 
• 
1082 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1958 
19ii1 
Khem 0Mnd 
1957. December 
13. 
The following Judgment of the 
Court was delivered by 
v. 
'l'Ac Union of I

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