STATE OF MYSORE versus K. MANCHE GOWDA

Citation: [1964] 4 S.C.R. 540 · Decided: 22-08-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

t • 
' 
. _' 
-
·./ 
J,~ .. \"\~.-
. _ · \' : s4ci · 
' ' SUP~ OOURT REPORTS 
'. '' 
' 
(1964) 
-, 
. '\ 
.~ ... 
" 1963 . 
-carefully, and Cxamined it in the light of the criticism of- . 
fcrc;d by. counsel for Noor ·Khan, . and after giving due 
weight to the opinion of 'the High Court and the 
Trial Court have come to the conclusion on the facts of 
this case that no prejudice appears to have been cau-
'· ,·. 
\ \ 
; 
Noor KAin 
--
v. 
· State of 
Raiiuthan. 
_ Shah /. 
. . 
1963 
sed. 
-
. 
. 
. _ As we h~ve already pointed out, the plea of prejudice. 
caused to_ the accused does not appear to have been raised in 
the High Court, and apart from the general pica of illega-
- lity of the trial because of the failure to supply the 
copies of the record of the statements made to Harl Singh, 
no substantial argument in support of the plea of pi:ejudice 
has been advanced. 
On the view we have taken, this appeal fails and is . 
dismissed. . 
. 
-
Appeal dismissed • 
STATE OF MYSORE 
. v. 
K. :MANCHE GOWDA 
. _ (P. B. GAJENDBAGADW, K. SuBBA RAo, K. N. WANcHoo, 
· N. RAJAGoPAU AYYANGAR AND J. R, MunHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Civil Si:rr:ant-Riuzsonable oppartunity-Dismissal baseJ on 
prer:iout punithmmts-Whethi:r an opportunity to erplain be givm 
in ·second show cause no!ice-!'Presumptive knowledge" and "rea-
sonaMe opportunity"-Con.rtitution of -lntlia, Art. 311(2)-G<>-
""'"'ment of India Act, 1935, s. 240(3). 
. 
The rcsponclcnt wai holding the post of an Assisunt to the . 
Additional Development Commissioner, Planning, Bangalore. A 
d<:partmental enquiry was held against him and the Enquiry Offi-
cer n:commended that the respondent be 
reduced in rank. 
Aftct considering the n:port of Enquiry Ol!ia:r, the Government 
. issued a notice calling upon respondent to show cause why he 
. should not be dismissed &om service. The n:ply of the respon-
dent was that the entire ase had been foisted on him. After con-
-
sicl<:ring his representaiioa, the Government passed an order dis-
·:·missing him &om service. The reason given for his dismissal .wu 
. that the respondent · had on two earlier occasions committed cer-
tain offences and he had been punished ·for the same. How::vcr, 
those facts were not given as n:asons for the proposed punishment 
of dismisul from scrvke. 
-
f 
-
, 
-
• 
It '' 
+ S.b.R. 
The respbndent lill!d ~ petii:iori in the High cirurt urider Art. 
226 of the Constitution for quashing the ordet of his' dismi;saJ. 
Tile High Coµrt quashed the order of dismissal on the gri;mnd 
that the two circumstances on which the Government relied tor 
thC prop?sCd lnfliction of punishmC~t Of dismissal were _not put to 
the respondent for l\cing explained by him in the show cause no-
tice which was issued to him. The appellant came to this Court 
by special leave. 
The contentions di the appellant were that the Government 
W?.s entitled to take into consideration the previous record of Ge>-
vernment servant in ~warding punishment to b.lln an~ it .w~ not 
irlCumbent Of?. it tO bring to the notice of the Government servant 
the said fact in the second notice. 
Moreover, as the Government 
servant in this case had knowledge of his two earlier punishments 
he was not in ariy Way prejudiced by their non-disclosure ill the 
second notice. Dismissing the appeal, 
Held, that it was incuml\cnt upon the Government to give the 
Government servant at the. second stage reasonable. opportunity to. 
snow cause against the proposed punishment and if the proposed 
pUnishment wa·s also based on his pre'Vious punishments, or his 
previous bad record, that should be included in the second notice 
so that he may be able to give an explanation. The doctrine of 
upresumptive knowledge" or that of "putposeless enquiry" is sub· 
versive of the principle of ''reasonable opportunity". 
Secretary of State for India, v. I. M. Lal, (1945] F.C.R. 103, 
Khem Chand v. Union of India, [19581 S.C.R. 1080, Gopalrao v. 
State, l.L.R. [1954] Nag. 90, Shankar Shukla v. Senior Superinten-
Ji:nt of Post Offices, Lucknow Division, A.LR. 1959 All. 624 and 
State of Auam v. Bimal Kumar Pandit, [1964] 2 S.C.R. referred 
to. 
C1v1L APPELLATE fuRrsDICTioN : Civil Appeal No. 387 
of 1963. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order 
dated February 14, 1962, of the Mysore High Court in 
Writ Petition No. 916 of 1959. 
C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General for India, R. Go-
palakrishnran and B. R. G. K. Achar for P. D. Menon, for 
the appellant. 
N aunit Lal, for the respondent.

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