STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus RAM RATAN

Citation: [1980] 3 S.C.R. 1243 · Decided: 09-05-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
' 
STATE OF'MADHYA PRADESH 
v. 
RAMRATAN 
May 9, 1980 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., S. MURTAZA FAZAL AU AND 
D. A. DESAI, JJ.] 
1243 
Disciplinary proceediflgs and second show cause notice 
to ternzinate 
the 
service of a government servant-No specification in the shott• cause· notice of 
tf(e particular penalty proposed to ~e inflicted tind impositipn of penalty other than 
$UCh proposed penalty, whether bad and illegal-Constitution of India, Article 
311(2) and Rule 15(4)(i)(b) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Con-
trol and Appeal) Rules, 1966. 
Practice and Procedure-Supreme Court is not bound to set aside the order 
of the High Court directing reinstatement of the employee when; he has succeeded. 
in two Courts below-Constitution of India, 1950, Art .. 136. 
Respondent Ram Ratan was empJoyed as a Forest Guard in 1the Forest 
Department of Madhya Pradesh Government. He was served with a ~barge~ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
sheet dated March 6, 1969, in which he was accused of misconduct. Respondent 
refuted the charges. A departmental eilquiry was held by the Divisional Forest 
Officer, Mr. Malhotra, in respect1 of the charges framed against the respondent. 
Charge of misconduct was held pro\led whereupon 
the 
punishing authority 
served respondent with a second show cause notice dated February 12, 1970, as 
contemplated by Article 311(2) of !lie 'constitution os it stood prior to its 
E 
amendment in 1976. 
After the respondent rep1ied to the notice 
the disciplinary--cum-punishing 
authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement on the respondent. The1 
respondent questioned the validity and correctness of the punislunent in Civil 
Suit No. 227-A/73 filed by him in the Court of the Civil Judge. Civil Court. 
Class II, Sabalgarh. The trial Court decreed the suit and set aside the order' 
imposing the m~.joI' penalty of compulsory retirement _and granted a declaration 
thaf respondent continues in service. 
On appeal by the State of Madhya Pra-
desh, the Second Additional District Judge, Morena, set aside the decree of the 
trial Court and dismissed the suit of the respondent. 
On appeal by the respon-
dent to the High Court a learned single judge of the Madhya Pradesh High 
Court allowed the appeal of respondent and set aside the decree made by the 
District Judge and restored the one passed by the trial Court with the result 
that a declaration was granted that the respondent. would continue inl service 
till the date of his superannuation. Hence this appeal by special leave by tho 
State of Madhya Pradesh. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. Article 311(2) as it stood at the relevant time prior to its 
amendment in 1976 imposed a constitutional obligation upon 
the 
punishing 
authority to serve a second show cause notice where it was 
proposed 
after 
departmental inquiry to impose on the delinqueitt Governn1ent servant any or the 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
44 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1980] 3 S.C.R. 
pcnai.t1es refererd to in Art. 311 so a~ to give a 
reasonable 
opportunity of 
lnaking representation on the penalty proposed. 
Rule 15 ( 4) (i) (b) of the 1966 
Rules prescribes proc¢ure to be fo1lo¥ied by the disciplinary authority before 
imposing punishtnent to the effect that the concerned authority should give1 a 
notice setting out the penalty proposed to be imposed on the .concen:;:ed guvern-
n1~nt · se1rvant, and calling upon him to submit within 15 days of the receipt of 
notice or such further time not exceeding 15 days, as may be· 
allo,ved, 
such 
representation as he may wish to make on the proposed penalty on thel basis of 
the evidence adduced during the inquiry held under rule 14. 'fhe punishing 
authority has in the second show cause notice to specify the punishment which 
it tentatively or provisiona·lly decides upon to impose looking to the gravity of 
the charge which is held proved. At that stage the decision of the punishing: 
authority is a tentative decision and in the1 very nature of things it must be so 
· because an opportunity has to be given to the delinquent government servant 
to make a representation on the nature of penalty. This would imply that if 
the delinquent officer in his representation makes out a case tor a lesser punish-
ment the disciplinary authority would keep an open mind and after applying its 
mind to the representation made by the delinquent government servant, the 
authority may either confirm its earlier tentative decision or it v1ould be open

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