M. GOPALA KRISHNA NAIDU versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1968] 1 S.C.R. 355 · Decided: 24-08-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
M. GOPALA KRISHNA NAIDU 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
August 24, 1967 
(J. C. SHAH, s. M. SiKRI AND J. M. SHELA!, JJ.J 
Got"emment Servic<!-'-Fundamental Rule r. 54-Emoluments pay-
able on re-'i11statement after suspension-Opportunity ta show 
cause whether necessary 
before !JOSsing orders under Rule and 
deciding which clause of the role is applicable to the cas<!-'-Natural 
Justice, 
The appellant was an Overseer in the Public Works Depart-
ment of the Central Provinces and Berar Government. In 1947 he 
was suspended from service and prosecuted under s. 161 I.P.C. 
Ultimately, on orders from the High Court, the prosecution was 
dropped. In a departmental enquiry also the appellant was exone-
rated. By an order dated December 1960, the Government held that 
the suspension of the appellant ar;d the departmental enquiry 
against him "were not wholly unjustified". The order then directed 
that the appellant should be reinstated in service with effect from 
the date of the order and retired from the date, he having already 
attained superannuation age on September 5, 1952 and that the 
entire period of absence from duty should be treated as period spent 
on duty under F.R. 54(5) for purposes of pension only, but that he· 
should not be allowed any pay beyond what he had actually receiv-
ed or what was allowed to him by way of subsistence allowance 
during the period of his suspension. The appellant filed a petition 
under Art. 226 of the Constitution contending that F. Rule 54(2) 
goverr.ed his case and not F. Rule 54(5). The High Court decided 
against him but granted him certificate to appeal to this Court. It 
was contended on behalf of the appellant that before deciding which 
rule applied to his case the Government should have given him an 
opportunity to be heard. The respondent urged that in passing a 
consequential order a hearing is not necessary. 
Held: An order passed under F.R 54 is not always a consequen-
tial order nor is such order necessarily 
a continuation of the 
departmental proceeding taken against the employee. [359E-F] 
Consideration under F.R. 54 depending as it does on facts and 
circumstances in their entirety, passing an order on the basis of 
factual finding arrived at from such facts and circumstances and 
such an order resulting in pecuniary loss to the Government servant 
must be held to be an object.ive rather than a subjective function. 
The very nature of the funct1011 implies the duty to act judicially. 
In such a case if ·an opportunity to show cause against the action 
proposed is not afforded, as admittedly it was not done in the pre-
sent case, the order is liable to be struck down as invalid on the 
gromJ.d tnat it was one in breach of the principles of natural 
justice. 
State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Devi and Ors .. [1967] 
2 S.C.R. 625, relied on. [359H: 360A-B] 
V. R. Gokhale v. State of Maharashtra, lL.R. [19631 Born. 537, 
approved. 
CIVIL APPELi.ATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2376 of 
1966. 
S5fl 
S'Ol'BBlfll COURT Rlll'ORTS 
[1008] 1 s.o.n. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated January 18, 1963 
A 
of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Miscellaneous Petition No. 
267 of 1962. 
R.V.S. Mani, E.C. Agarwala and P.C. Agarwala, for Ille 
appellant. 
B. Sen, M.N. Shroff for l.N. Shroff for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by, 
Slaelat, J. Prior to December 17, 1947 the appellant was 
serving as an Overseer in the Public Works Department of the 
Central Provinces and Berar Government. On December 17. 1947 
he was suspended from service and prosecuted under section 161 
of the Penal Code. The trial resulted in his conviction but that 
was set aside in appeal on the ground that no proper sanction 
for prosecution was obtained. He was again prosecuted on the 
same charge but the Special Judge trying him quashed the charge-
sheet on the ground that the investigation had not been carried 
out by the proper authorities. In revision the High Court of Nagpur 
held that the Special Judge was in error in so holding but recom· 
mended that the prosecution 
should not be proceeded with a!I 
nearly 10 years had gone by since it was launched against the 
appellant. Following the rect>mmendation the prosecution was 
dropped but a departmental inquiry was held on the same charges. 
The Inquiry Officer found the appellant not guilty but the Gov-
ernment disagreed with that finding and served a notice to show 
cause why he should not be

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