UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus K. RAJAPPA MENON

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 343 · Decided: 07-10-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
B 
.. .._ 
c 
-
D 
E 
F 
• 
G 
H 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
v. 
K. RAJAPPA MENON 
October 7, 1968 
(J. C. SHAH, G. K. MITTER, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, //.] 
Conduct and Disciplinary Rules, r. 
1713-Disciplinary 
authority 
whether required to give detailed reasons for confirming finding established 
at departmental enquiry. 
Constitution of India, Art. 3Il(2)-Second show cause 
notice-If 
authority can make up mind tentatively before receipt of explanation. 
After the reply of the respondent-a railway employee-in respect of 
certain charges preferred against him was received, a departmental enquiry 
was held. The Enquiring Officer found all the charges proved. A show 
cause notice. was then served stating that it had been tentatively decided 
by the Chief Commercial Superintendent that the respondent should be 
dismissed from service. This notice was served after the Chief Commer-
cial Superintendent had recorded an order stating that he had seen the 
enquiry proceedings, that the procedure had been correctly followed, and 
that he agreed with the findings of the Enquiring Officer. The respondent 
submitted his explanation; thereafter his dismissal was ordered. The res-
pondent filed a writ petition in the High Court. The single Judge allowed 
the petition holding that the Chief Commercial Superintendent was bound 
to pass a detailed order expressing his views about each of th~ charges 
and that a general agreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer did 
not satisfy the requirements of r. 1713 of the Conduct and Disciplinary 
Rules. This decision was affirmed by the Division Bench. In appeal, 
this Court. 
HELD : The appeal must be allowed. 
(i) Rule 1713 does not lay down any particular form or manner in 
which the disciplinary authority should record its findings on each charge. 
All that the Rule requires is that the record of the enquiry should be con-
sidered and disciplinary authority should proceed to give its findings on 
each charges. 
This does not and cannot mean that it is obligatory on 
the disciiplinary authority to discuss the evidence and the facts and circum-
stances established at the departmental enquiry in detail and write as if 
it were an order or a judgment of a judicial tribunal. The rule certainly 
requires the disciplinary authority to give consideration to the record of 
the proceedings which was done by the Chief Commercial Superintendent. 
When he agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer that all 
the 
charges mentioned in the charge sheet had been established it meant that 
he was affirming the findings on each charge and that would 
certainly 
fulfil the requirement of the Rule. [345 H-346 DJ 
(ii) There was no force in the respondent's contention that the dis-
ciplinary authority was not entitled to have finally made up its 
mind 
before the explanation to the second show cause notice had been received 
by it and at a stage prior to the issuance of the notice. The procedure 
which is to be followed under Art. 311(2) of the Constitution of affording 
a reasonable opportunity includes the giving of two notices, one at the 
enquiry stage and the other when the competent authority as a result 
of the enquiry tentatively determines to inflict a particular punishment. 
344 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1969] 2 S.C.R. 
It is quite obvious that unless the disciplinary or the competent authority 
A 
arrives at some tentative decision it will not be in a position to determine 
• 
what particular punishment to inflict and a second show cause notice can-
not be issued without such a tentative determination. [346 El 
Khem Chand v. Union of India & Ors,, [1958] S.C.R. 1080, followed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1064 of 
1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated 
August 4, 1965 of the Kerala High Court in Writ Appeal No. 205 
of 1964. 
B. Sen and S. P. Nayar, for appellant No. 1. 
A. S. Nambiar and Lily Thomas, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Grover, J. This is an appeal by special leave from the 
judgment of the Kerala High Court in which the only point which 
arises for decision is whether Rule 1713 of the Conduct and Dis-
ciplinary Rules, hereinafter called the Rules, for railway servants 
was correctly applied and the dismissal of the respondent, who at 
the material time, was an Assistant Station Master was rightly set 
aside for non-compliance with that Rule. 
B 
c 
D 
The facts lie within a narrow compas

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