LexSTATE OF ASSAM & ANOTHER versus BIMAL KUMAR PANDIT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
TI-IE SUPREME COURT REPORTS STATE OF ASSAM & ANOTHER v. BIMAL KUMAR PANDIT (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYA'.l'ULLAH, K. C. DAS GUPTA and J. c. SHA.R, JJ.) Governnicnt Servant-8u1JjJension, enquiry and de11iol1on- Rea•onable Oppo1tunity what is-Contents of .econd notice when Governrnent accept,r.:, rejects or partly accepts or pa.rt!y rejects the findings of Enquiry Officer.-Necessity of stating conclusions of Government in notice-llunction of 1Cn11u..i'.ry Officer-Constitution of India, Art. 311 (2). , The respondent was an Extra Assistant Com1nissioner. He was charge-sheeted and he submitted an elahorate explana- tion in respect of. all the charges. The enquiry was held by the Commissioner and a report submitted by him. After giving his findings, the Commis~doner added that the lapses proved did not cast any serious doubt on the honesty and inte~ grity of the respondent and hence the withholding of three increments from his pay would meet the ends of justice. The appellant served a second notice on the responde.nt and the latter was asked to submit his explanation why penalty of removal from service should not be imposed upon him. 'fhe respondent submitted an explanation and the Governor of Assam, after considering the explanation, ordered his demotion. That order was challenged by the respondent by a writ petition filed in the High Court. The writ petition was allowed by the High Court and a writ of mandamu• was issued ·directing the appellant not to give effect to the order of demotion. The High Court held that the second notice did not clearly indicate that the Government had accepted the findings of Enquiry Officer and as such a statement was not made in the notice, the respondent could not have known on what grounds the Government had provisionally decided to 1963 Februor;, 12. 1~63 Statt ef ~rsam v. Bimai K11mar Pandit 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. impose upon him the penalty of removal from service. It was aho held that the notice must show that the dismissing authority had applied it• mind to the lindings of the Enquiry Officer .a.nd had accepted the said findings against the respon- dent. I he nollce should cxprcs,.ly stcltc the conclusions of the dis1nissing authority because unless those conclusions \\:ere con1municate<l to the respondent, he was not in a position to rnakc an adecp1atc or effective representation. 'l'he dis1nissing authority must also indicate the reasnns on whic:h it had C1)1ne to those couclusions. A<:, the impugned notice Jid not contain a specific avermcut that the disrnissing authority had accepted the findings of the Enquiry OITiccr and other,,·isc gave no grounds or reasons for the action proposed to be taken against th~ respondent, it contravened the provisions of 1\11. 311 (2). ·rhe appellant came to this Court by special lca\·c. lleld, that the 1-Iigh Court \Vas in error in con1i11g to the conclusion that the order of den1otion passed against the res[>Ondent \\'3S in\·ali<l Oil the ground that the respondent had not hccn given a reasonable opportunity of sho\ving cause against the action to be taken against him under Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution. A public officer against \'.'hotn disciplinary proceedings arc intentied to he taken is entitled to ha.ve t\'IO opportunities. An t>nquiry 1nust be held and it n1ust be conducted according t<> the rides prescribed in that bc:half and consistently ,,,.iti\ the rr.quirc1ncnts of natw·al justice. \Vhen the Enquiry O:Ticcr subinits his report, the Jis1nissing authority has to consider the report and decide v.ihether it agrees \Vith the conclusi•>ns of tht. report or not. If the findings in the report arc against the public offjcer and the dismissing authority agrees \\'ith them, another notice has to be given. In issuing the se~ond notice, the dismissing authority has to co:nc to a tentative or provi- sional conclusion about the guilt of the public officer as \vcll as about the punishment which \Vould meet the ends of justice. In response to thi, notice, the public officer is entitled to sho\v cause not only against the action proposed to \Je t<tken against him but also against the validity or correctness of the fi~-1 dings recorded by the Enquiry O!Ticcr and provisionally accepted by the disniis~ing authority. If the dismissing authority differs fro1n the findings rccordt'd in the enquiry report, it is nec<:ssary that
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.