STATE OF GUJARAT versus R. G. TEREDESAI & ANR.

Citation: [1970] 1 S.C.R. 251 · Decided: 10-04-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

./ 
I 
A 
B 
c 
D 
. E 
F 
G 
H 
251 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
v. 
R. G. TEREDESAI & ANR. 
April 10, 1969 
(J. C. SHAH, V. RA~lASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Constitution of Jrtdia Art; 311(2)-Failure to provide recommenda//ons 
of the Enquiring Officers as to punishment-If vitiates enquiry-Natural 
Justice, Principles-Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) 
-Rules, r. 55, 
As there Was omission to supply to the first respondent a copy of thC 
recommendations of the Enquiry officer in the matter 
of 
punishment 
(although a copy of his report containing his findings on· various charges. 
\VaS supplied) the first respondent filed a V.'rit petition in the High Court 
challenging the order of the State Government removing him from its 
service. ·The first respondent contended_. that_ the omission amounted to 
failure to provide reasonable opportunity of making-representation a,:sinst 
the penalty proposed within the meaning of Art. 311(2) of the Cowtitu-
. tion. The High Court held that proceedings we're vitiated from tho stage 
of the show cause notice relating to punishment, and set aside the ocder 
of removal, but liberty was given to the State Government to issue: fresh 
shuv.· cause notiCe regarding . the proposed punishment. 
Dismissing the 
State's appeal, this Court; 
· 
HELD :-The requirement of a reasonahle oppo'rtunity could not be 
satisfied unless the entire report of the Enquiry Officer including his vie\Vs 
in the matter of punishment were disclosed to the delinquent servant. 
[254 E] 
The Enquiry Officer is under no obligation or duly to make any recom-
mendations in the matter of punishment to be imposed on the servant 
against v.·hom the departmental enquiry is. held, and his function merely 
is to conduct the enquidy in accordance with la\v and to submit the record 
along with his findings or conclusions on the delinquent servant. 
But if 
the Enquiry Officer has, also made recommendations in the matter of 
punishm·.ent that is likely to affect the mind of the punishing authority 
with regard to penolty or punishment to be imposed on. such officer, it 
must be disclosed to the delinquent officer. Since such recommendations 
form part of the record and constitut·~ appropdiate material for considera-
. tion of the Government it "\\'Ould be essential that that m·aterial should not 
be withheld from him so that he could, while. showing cause against the 
proposed punishment, make. a proper representation. 
The entire object 
of supplying a copy of the report of the Enquidy Officer is to enable the 
delinquent officer to satisfy the punishing authority that he is innocent of 
the charges framed against him and that even if the charges :are 
held 
to have been proved the punishment proposed to be inflicted is unduly 
sevete. [253 H-254 DJ 
Union of India v. H. C. Goel, (1964] 4 S.C.R. 718, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil App~al No. 961 of 
1966. 
. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and! order dated 
March 18, 1965 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Appli-
cation No. 580 of 1961. 
I 
SUPREME CO~RT REPORTS 
I 
[ 1970] I S.C.R. 
R. H. Dhebar, S. K. Dholakia and S. P. Nayar, for the appel· 
A 
lant. 
G. L. Sanghi and A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for mpandent No. 1. 
M. S. K. Sastri, R. H. Dhebar and R. N. S.chthey, for respon-
dent No. 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
t;ro"fer, J, 
This is an appeal by special leave against a judg· 
mC11t of the Gujarat High Coun. The sole point for determina-
tion is whether omission to supply to the .first mpondent a copy 
of the recommendatiors of the &quiry Officer in the matter of 
pWlishment, although a copy of his report containing his findings 
on the various charges was supplied, amounWd to a failure to 
pro'ride reasonable opportunity of making a representation against 
the penalty proposed within the meaning of Art. 311 (2) of the 
Comtitution. 
The first respondent joined the Baroda State Service in 1937. 
He was absorbed as a Sales Tax Officer, Class ill in the former 
State of Bombay after merger. In December 1962 he was served 
witb a charge-sheet containing allegations of attempt to obtain 
illegal gratification from certain cloth dealers. 
A departmental 
enquiry was held and on March 15, 1964 he was dismissed from 
senice. He challenged the order of dismissal by means of a 
B 
c 
D 
- ci"fil suit. In May 1958 the City Civil Court decreed the suit 
holding that the order of dismissal was illegal. He was reinstated 

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