1. Government servant dismissed from service — Challenge to dismissal for non-compliance with Article 311(2) regarding reasonable opportunity to show cause against proposed action. (Para 2 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
1957 Supreme(SC) 147
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
13th December, 1957.
S.R. DAS, C.J.I. T.L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR, S.K. DAS, A.K. SARKAR AND VIVIAN BOSE, JJ.
Khem Chand, Appellant
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 353 of 1957.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Janardhan Sharma, Advocate, for Appellant; Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, (M/s. R. Ganapathy Iyer and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates with him), for Respondents.
Advocates:
C.K.DAFTARY, JANARDAN SHARMA, R.Ganapathy Iyer, R.H.Dhebar
C.K.DAFTARY, JANARDAN SHARMA, R.Ganapathy Iyer, R.H.Dhebar
Article 311(2) of the Constitution requires a "reasonable opportunity," which includes both the right to defend against charges during an enquiry and a subsequent opportunity to represent against the specific punishment proposed after the charges have been proved and the authority has tentatively decided on the penalty.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 310 and 311 - Reasonable opportunity of showing cause - Dismissal from service - The protections afforded under Article 311(2) are constitutional safeguards that qualify the pleasure of the President or Governor under Article 310(1). (Paras 12, 13)
(B) Interpretation of "reasonable opportunity" under Article 311(2) - The requirement of a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken is not a single-stage process but encompasses: (i) an opportunity to deny guilt and establish innocence, which requires being informed of the charges and the allegations on which they are based; (ii) an opportunity to defend oneself by cross-examining witnesses and producing evidence; and (iii) an opportunity to make representations as to why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted, which arises after the enquiry is over and the competent authority, having applied its mind to the gravity of the proved charges, tentatively proposes a specific punishment. (Paras 18, 19)
(C) Sufficiency of initial notice - A notice served at the start of an enquiry calling upon a government servant to show cause why they should not be dismissed if charges are proved is not a substitute for the requirement to provide a further opportunity to represent against the specific punishment proposed after the findings of the enquiry have been reached and the authority has provisionally determined the penalty. (Paras 21, 22)
Facts of the case:
A government servant was served with a charge sheet and an enquiry was conducted. The employee attended initial hearings but later ceased participation after a request to change the enquiry officer was rejected. Following the enquiry, a report was submitted recommending dismissal based on proved charges. The competent authority approved the report and issued a formal order of dismissal. The employee challenged the dismissal on the grounds that he was not given an opportunity to show cause against the specific punishment proposed after the enquiry was concluded, thereby violating the constitutional protections under Article 311(2).
Findings of Court:
The court found that although the employee had the opportunity to defend himself against the charges during the enquiry, he was not provided with a subsequent opportunity to represent against the specific penalty of dismissal after the competent authority had applied its mind to the proved charges and tentatively decided on the punishment.
Issues: Whether the government servant was given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him as required under Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The "reasonable opportunity" mandated by Article 311(2) is not exhausted by the enquiry into the charges. It necessitates a distinct stage where, after the charges are established, the employee is informed of the tentatively proposed punishment and given a chance to represent why that specific penalty should not be imposed. This ensures that the competent authority maintains an open mind and adheres to the principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a single notice at the start of the enquiry suffices or if a separate opportunity to represent against the proposed punishment is required after findings are established. (Para 10 , 21 )
3. Reasonable opportunity under Article 311(2) encompasses both the right to defend against charges and the right to represent against the specific punishment tentatively proposed after the enquiry. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
4. Article 311(2) requires a government servant be given an opportunity to represent against the proposed punishment after the competent authority has applied its mind to the proved charges. (Para 19 , 20 )
5. Appeal allowed — Dismissal order declared inoperative — Declaration that the appellant remained a member of the service. (Para 22 )
6. What constitutes a reasonable opportunity under Article 311(2) of the Constitution?
It includes an opportunity to deny guilt and establish innocence by knowing the charges and allegations, defending via cross-examination of witnesses, and making representations against the proposed punishment after the competent authority has applied its mind to the gravity of the proved charges. (Para 18 , 19 )
7. Is a notice issued at the start of an enquiry sufficient to satisfy the requirement of showing cause against a proposed punishment?
No. A separate opportunity must be provided after the enquiry is complete and the competent authority has tentatively determined the punishment. This ensures the authority maintains an open mind and that justice is seen to be done. (Para 21 )
8. How does Article 311(2) function as a safeguard for government servants?
It converts protections previously found in administrative rules into a constitutional safeguard, limiting the pleasure of the President or Governor by prohibiting dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank without a reasonable opportunity to show cause. (Para 12 , 19 )
Judgment
S. R. DAS CJI.: This appeal by special leave granted by this Court to the plaintiff-appellant is directed against the judgment and decree passed on November 1, 1955, by a Single Judge of the Punjab High Court sitting in the Circuit Bench at Delhi in regular second appeal No. 28-D of 1955.
2. The facts leading up to the present appeal are shortly as follows: On April 6, 1943, the appellant was appointed a sub-inspector under the Delhi Audit Fund. In February 1947, he was transferred to the Cooperative Societies Department and posted as sub-inspector in the Milk Scheme. On July 3, 1947, the appellant was confirmed by the then Deputy Commissioner of Delhi who was also the ex-officio Registrar of Co-operative Societies. On August 1, 1948, the appellant was transferred to the Rehabilitation Department of the Co-operative Societies and posted as sub-inspector. On July 1, 1949, the appellant was suspended by the then Deputy Commissioner Delhi. On July 9, 1949, the appellant was served with a charge sheet under R. 6 (1) of the Rules which had been framed by the Chief Commissioner, Delhi to provide for the appointment to the subordinate services under his administrative control and the discipline and rights of appeal of members of those services. After formulating eight several charges the document concluded as follows:
"You are, therefore, called upon to show cause why you should not be dismissed from the service. You should also state in your reply whether you wish to be heard in person or whether you will produce defence. The reply should reach the Asst. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Delhi, within ten days from the receipt of this charge sheet."
The charge sheet was signed by Shri Rameshwar Dayal who was at that time the Deputy Commissioner of Delhi and was admittedly the authority competent to dismiss the appellant.
3. The appellant duly submitted his explanation in writing. One Shri Mahipal Singh, Inspector, Co-operative Societies was appointed by the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi the Officer to hold the enquiry. The appellant attended two sittings before the Enquiry Officer and then applied to the Deputy Commissioner to entrust the enquiry to some Gazetted Officer under him. This request of the appellant was rejected and he was informed accordingly. Indeed, the appellant was warned that the Enquiry Officer had been authorised to proceed with the enquiry ex-parte if the appellant failed to attend the enquiry. The appellant, however, did not, after October 20, 1949, attend any further sittings before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer thereupon framed four additional charges against the appellant, namely, (1) for his refusal to attend the enquiry, (2) for his refusal to accept the service of the order of the Enquiry Officer, (3) for his absence without permission and (4) for his misconduct in snatching away papers from one Mohd. Ishaq and using unparliamentary and threatening language.
4. It appears that at or about this time the appellant became involved in a criminal case on a charge under S. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and on October 30, 1949, he was actually arrested but was released on bail two or three days later. Eventually on May 20, 1950, the appellant was discharged from the criminal charge.
5. On November 14, 1951, the appellant was served with a notice signed by one Shri Vasudev Taneja, Superintendent. The notice was in the following terms: "Please note that you are to appear before Shri J. B. Tandon, I A. S., Additional District Magistrate, on 24th November, 1951, at 10-30 a.m., in his Court room in connection with the departmental enquiry pending against you." The language employed in the notice does lend some support to the contention that the Enquiry Officer, Shri Mahipal Singh, had not concluded the enquiry entrusted to him and that the departmental enquiry was still pending.
6. Pursuant to the notice the appellant appeared before Shri J. B. Tandon and urged two points, namely, (1) that the enquiry of the
