STATE OF U.P. versus MANBODHAN LAL SRIVASTAVA

Citation: [1958] 1 S.C.R. 533 · Decided: 20-09-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

S.GR. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
533 
which is the subject-matter of appeal before us was 
correct. 
It is no doubt true that the Labour Appellate 
Tribunal recorded a finding in favour of the appel-
lant that in terminating the service of the respondent 
as it did, the appellant was not guilty of any unfair 
labour practice nor was it actuated by any motive of 
victimization against the respondent. That finding, 
' however, cannot help the appellant in so far as the 
Labour Appellate Tribunal held that the appellant 
had failed to make out a prima facie case for termina-
ting the service of the respondent. 
We, therefore, hold that the decision of the Labour 
Appellate Tribunal refusing permission to the appel-
lant under s. 22 of the Act was correct and this appeal 
is liable to be dismissed. 
It will accordingly be 
dismissed with cost. 
Appeal dismissed. 
STATE OF U.P. 
v. 
MANBODHAN LAL SRIVASTAVA. 
(S. R. DAS, C. J., VENKATARAMA AYYAR, B. P. SINHA, 
J. L. KAPUR and A. K. SARKAR, JJ.) 
Covernment 
Servant-Disciplinary proceedings-Enquiry-
Show-cause notice under Art. 311(2) of the Constitution -Consulta-
tion of Public Service Commission-Whether mandatory-Consti-
tution of India, Arts. 311(2), 320(3)(c). 
The respondent was an. employee under the appellant, the 
' State of Uttar Pradesh, and as it was discovered that he had 
allowed his private interests to come in conflict with his public 
duties, a departmental inquiry was held wherein charges were 
framed against him. He was called upon to submit his written 
statement of defence and given an opportunity to adduce evidence 
in support of it. After considering the report of the enquiry, in 
which the charges were fournl to be true, the appellant called 
upon the respondent, under Art. 311(2) of the Constitution of 
India, to show cause why he should not be demoted and compul-
sorily retired, and the respondent submitted a written explana-
tion setting out his defence and objecting to the procedure 
1957 
Martin Burn Ltd. 
V. 
R. N. Banerjee 
Bhagwati .I, 
!957 
September 20 
1957 
!i1ate of U. P. 
v. 
lf anbodhan Lal 
Srivtutava 
534 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1958] 
adopted at the inquiry. 
Subsequently, the respondent was given 
a copy of the report and again called upon to show cause why tbe 
proposed penalty of reduction in rank should not be imposed upon 
him, and he once again submitted a written explanation. In the 
meantime the State Public Service Commission was consulted by 
the Government as to the punishment proposed to be imposed, 
,and for this purpose it was supplied with all the relevant material 
up to the date of the second show-cause notice. The Government 
finally by an order dated September 12, 1953, inter alia, reduced 
the rank of the respondent with effect from August 2, 1952, and 
thereupon, the respondent filed petitions under Art. 226 of the 
Constitution before the High cburt challenging the legality of the 
·Government order. The High Court found that though the State 
Public Service Commission was consulted by the Government it 
was not supplied with the written explanation submitted by the 
respondent in answer to the second show-cause notice, and held 
that the order of the Government was invalid for the reason that 
the provision of Art. 320(3)(c) of the Constitution had not been 
fully complied with. 
On appeal to the Supreme Court additional 
.evidence was sought to be adduced on behalf of the appellant to 
show that as a matter of fact the State Public Service Commis-
sion was consulted even after the submission of the respondent's 
explanation in answer to the second show-cause notice, but it was 
found that there was sufficient opportunity for the appellant 
to place all the relevant materials, before the High Court itself: 
Held, (I) that the additional evidence ought not to be 
admitted and that the finding of the High Court that there was 
no consultation with the Commission after the respondent had 
submitted his explanation in answer to the second show-cause 
notice, must stand. 
It is well-settled that additional evidence should not be 
permitted at the appellate stage in order to enable one of the 
parties to remove lacunae in presenting its case at the 
proper 
stage, and to fill in gaps. Of course, the position is different 
where the appellate court itself requires certain evidence to be 
.adduced in order to enable it to do justice between the parties. 
(2) that the provisions of Art. 320(3)(c) of the Constitution 
o

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