MADAN GOPAL versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1963] 3 S.C.R. 716 · Decided: 27-08-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1962 --
716 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19113] 
MADAN GOPAL 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJA~ 
(P. B. SINHA, c. J., K. SUBBA RAO, J. c. SHAH, 
· 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR and 
J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Temporary Govornm<at Servant-Termination of Service-
Jilnquiry-Misconduct-Oonstitution of India, Art. 311(2). 
' 
The appellant, ·a temporary Government servant, was 
...__ 
. served with a charge sheet alleging misconduct. 
An enquiry 
was held on the charges by the Settlement Officer and the 
appellant was 
found 
guilty. The Deputy Commissioner 
accepting the findings of the Settlement Officer and without 
•• 
giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant of showing 
cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him 
terminated his services after giving him one month's pay in 
lieu of one month's notice. The appellant challenged the 
termination of his •ervice by way of a writ petition before the 
Punjab High Court. The Single Judge granted the writ 
quashing the order. The Division Bench reversed the Single 
Judge's order. 
Held, that the termination of the appellant'• service 
which was preceded by an enquiry into his alleged misconduct 
and based on the finding of misconduct, amounted to cast-
ing a stigma affecting his future career, and, there being 
non-compliance with Art. 311(2) of the Constitution of India 
in that the appellant was not afforded the opportunity to show 
cause against the proposed punishment, the order contravened 
Art. 31I(2) of the C~mstitution. · 
Puru•hottam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, (1958) 
· S, C. R. 828, referred to. 
Stat< of Bihar v. Gopi Kishore PraMd A. I. R. 1960 S. C. 
689, followed. 
State of Ori1Sa v. Ram Narain Das, (1961) 1 S. C.R. 606 
distinguished. 
· 
' 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal 
No. 329of1960, 
-· 
·3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
717 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated· 
October 28, 1958, of the Punjab High Court in. 
L. P.A. No. 72 of 1958. 
N. N. KeBwani, for the appellant. 
N. S. Bindra and P. D. Menon, for the res-
pondents. 
1962; August 27. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
SHAH, J.-The appellant Madan Gopal was 
appointed an Inspector of Consolidation by order 
dated October 5, 1953 of the Settlement Commis-
sioner.of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union. 
The 
appointment was "on 
temporary 
basis .... 
and terminable with one month's notice". On 
February 5, 1955, the appellant was served with a 
. ''charge-sheet" by the Settlement Officer, Bhatinda _ 
that be (the appellant) had received Rs. 150/- as 
illegal gratification from one Darbar~ Singh and 
bad demanded Rs. 30/- as illegal gratification from 
one Ude Singh. The appellant was called upon to 
show caus:i why disciplfoary action should not be 
taken against him if the allegations in the charge-
sheet were proved. The appellant submitted his 
explanation to the charge-sheet. On Fehruary 
22! 1955, the Settlement Officer submitted his report 
to the Dtiputy Commissioner Bhatinda, that the 
chage refa.ting to recept of illegal gratification from 
Darbara. Singh. was proved. 
Th~ Deputy Commis-
sioner by order dated March 17, 1 V55 ordered that 
the services. of Madan Gopal Inspector be terminat-
ed forthwith and that in lieu of notice he will jlet 
one month's pay as required by the Rules. 
The appellant requested the Deputy Commi111-
ainer to review the order, and also submitted a. 
-.. memorial to the Minister for Revenue affairs. Hav-
ing failed to obtain relief, the appellant applied to_ 
1Sfi3 
JI adan Gopal 
v. 
St•te ~J PUnj<1b,, 
Mhsh J. 
1iet 
.Ji•tla• Ooflol 
' . .. 
Slat1 •f PuaJd 
718 
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1963] 
to the High Court of Pepsu for a writ under Art. 226 
of the Constitution quashing the order dated March 
17, 1955 on the ground inter alia that the order of 
dismissal from service was in contravention of Art. 
3,1 of the Constitution as no reasonable opportu-
nity to show cause against the order of dismissal 
was at all given., He also challenged the authority 
of the Settlement Officer to hold the enquiry and 
submitted that the procedure followed by that 
Officer in making the enquiry was irregular. The 
petition was transferred to the High Court . of 
Punjab on the reorganization of the State of 
l:'unjab. 
Mr. Justice Bishan Narain 
who heard the 
application issued the writ prayed for, because, in 
his view, the order of termination of employment 
was in the nature of an order of punishment and as 
the provisions of Art. 311(2) had not b

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