STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus BRAHMA DATT SHARMA AND ANR.

Citation: [1987] 2 S.C.R. 444 · Decided: 25-02-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
v. 
BRAHMA DATT SHARMA AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 25,1987 
[A.P. SEN AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.). 
U.P. Civil Service Regulations, Article 470(b): Pension-Whether 
Government competent to direct reduction-Government Servant-
Whether entitled to be heard. 
Practice and Procedure: 
Government servant-Show cause notice issued under statutory 
. provision-Courts to be reluctant to interfere unless issuance palpably 
_.,...,_ 
' 
----
without any authority of law. 
~ 
D 
Service law. 
Disciplinary procee/iings-Whether could be resumed after 
superannuation. 
Article 470(b) of the U.P. Civil Service Regulations provides for 
E reduction in pension amount by the sanctioning authority in cases 
where the service of a Government servant bas not been thoroughly 
satisfactory. 
A number of charges framed against the first respondent were 
found proved in a departmental inquiry. He was dismissed from service 
F 
by order dated November IO, I972. The U.P. Pnblic Service Tribunal 
upheld the dismissal. In a writ petition filed by him the High Court 
quashed the said order on August IO, I984 on the ground that he had 
not been afforded reasonable opportunity of defence inasmuch as the 
recommendation of the inquiry officer relating to the quantum of 
punishment had not been communicated to him. Since the respondent 
G had already retired from service during the pendency of the petition 
only consequential reliefs were granted. 
The State Government issued a notice to him on January 29, I98' 
calling upon him to show cause as to why orders for forfeiture of bis 
pension and gratuity be not issued in accordance with Article 470(b) of 
H 
the Civil Service Regulations as bis services have not been wholly satis-
444 
STATE OF U.P. v. B.D. SHARMA 
445 
factory. It contained allegations or misconduct. The respondent there-
A 
-. 
upon filed on application in the writ petition which bad already been 
disposed or on August 10, 1984. The High Court held that since depart-
mental proceedings taken against the respondent bad already been 
quashed, it was not open to the State Government to issue show cause 
notice for imposing reduction in the respondent's pension on the same 
B 
set of charges. 
' 
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court, 
' 
.;. ~--
HELD:l. When a show cause notice is issued to a Government 
servant under a statutory provision be mu.st place bis case before the 
authority concerned by showing cause. The courts should be reluctant 
C 
to interfere with the notice at that stage unless it is shown to have been 
1 
issued palpably without any authority of law. The purpose of issuing 
show cause notice is to afford opportunity of bearing to the Government 
servant and once cause is shown it is open-to the Government to con-
sider the matter in the light of the facts and submissions placed by the 
D 
Government servant and only thereafter a final decision in the matter 
could be taken. Interference by the Court before that stage would be 
premature. The High Court, therefore, ought not to have interfered 
with the show cause notice in the instant case. [452H; 453A-C] 
2.1 When proceedings stand terminated hy final disposal of a 
writ petition it is not open to the Court to reopen them by means of 
miscellaneous application in respect of a matter which provided a fresh 
cause of action. [ 453F] 
E 
2.2 In the instant case Respondent's writ petition challenging the 
order of dismissal having been finally disposed of on August 10, 1984 no' 
F 
·+-· miscellaneous application could be filed in the writ petition to revive 
those proceedings. If the respondent was aggrieved by the notice dated 
January 29, 1986 he could have tiled a separate petition under Article 
226 of the Constitution, as it provided a separate cause of action. The 
High Court, therefore, committed an error in entertaining his appli-
cation. [453D-E] 
3. After the decision of the writ petition it was open to the State 
Government to have taken up proceedings against the respondent from 
the stage at which it was found to be vitiated. Had the respondent not 
retired from service the State Government could have passed orders awar-
G 
ding punishment to him after issuing a fresh show cause notice. [449D] 
H 
446 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
4. Merely because a Government servant retires from service on 
attaining the age of superannuation he cannot escape the liability of 
misconduct and neligence or fmancial irregularities. The

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