1. Compulsory retirement of a civil servant — Challenge to validity — Alleged violation of Article 311(2) regarding reasonable opportunity to defend. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
1965 Supreme(SC) 50
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.
The State of Bombay (now Maharashtra), Appellant
Versus
Nurul Latif Khan, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 1040 of 1963.
Advocates appeared
Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Attorney General for India (M/s. M. S. K. Sastry and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates with him), for Appellant; Mr. C. B. Agarwala, Senior Advocate, (Mr. A. G. Ratnaparkhi, Advocate with him), for Respondent.
Advocates:
A.G.Ratnaparkhi, C.B.AGARWAL, C.K.DAFTARY, M.S.K.Shastri, R.H.Dhebar
A.G.Ratnaparkhi, C.B.AGARWAL, C.K.DAFTARY, M.S.K.Shastri, R.H.Dhebar
Under Article 311(2) of the Constitution, if statutory rules mandate an oral enquiry upon the request of a charge-sheeted officer, failure to conduct such an enquiry—especially when the officer seeks to lead relevant evidence—constitutes a denial of reasonable opportunity, rendering the subsequent punitive order invalid.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 311(2) - Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules - Rule 55 - Compulsory retirement - Reasonable opportunity to defend - Mandatory nature of oral enquiry - If the charge-sheeted officer desires an oral enquiry, the authority is obligated to hold one - Failure to conduct an oral enquiry when requested, especially to lead evidence on a material fact such as ill-health, constitutes a failure to provide a reasonable opportunity under Article 311(2) - Such an omission introduces a fatal infirmity in the departmental enquiry. (Paras 10, 13, 14)
(B) Departmental Enquiry - Scope of discretion - While the enquiry officer can regulate the proceedings and refuse irrelevant witnesses by recording special and sufficient reasons in writing, they cannot dispense with the oral enquiry entirely if the officer requests it. (Para 14)
Facts of the case:
A government servant was compulsorily retired following a departmental enquiry for disobedience of orders and failure to resume duties. The employee claimed he was unable to resume duties due to serious illness and repeatedly requested an oral enquiry to examine medical witnesses to prove that his disobedience was not deliberate. The enquiry officer, however, proceeded based solely on documentary evidence and did not hold an oral enquiry, despite the employee's requests.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the statutory rules governing the enquiry made it mandatory to hold an oral enquiry if the charged officer so desired. Since the employee had requested to lead medical evidence to support his plea, the failure to hold an oral enquiry was a fatal flaw that violated the requirements of the statutory rules and the Constitution.
Issues: Whether the failure of the enquiry officer to hold an oral enquiry, despite the respondent's request to examine witnesses, amounted to a failure to provide a reasonable opportunity to defend himself within the meaning of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The requirement under the statutory rules to hold an oral enquiry upon the request of the charge-sheeted officer is mandatory and based on principles of natural justice and fair play. When an officer seeks to lead evidence on a relevant material fact, the enquiry officer cannot unilaterally decide to rely only on documents. Such a failure violates the constitutional guarantee of a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Validity of compulsory retirement order — Whether reasonable opportunity to defend was provided under Article 311(2) — Necessity of oral enquiry to lead evidence. (Para 3 , 4 , 7 , 9 )
3. Mandatory nature of oral enquiry under statutory rules — Relevance of medical evidence to prove non-deliberate disobedience — Failure to conduct oral enquiry despite request. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. Failure to hold a mandatory oral enquiry upon the request of a charge-sheeted officer constitutes a denial of reasonable opportunity under Article 311(2). (Para 13 , 14 )
5. Appeal dismissed — Order of compulsory retirement held invalid for violation of Article 311(2). (Para 15 )
6. Does the failure to hold an oral enquiry always violate Article 311(2)?
Not necessarily, but if the relevant statutory rules make it obligatory to hold an oral enquiry upon the request of the charge-sheeted officer, failure to do so constitutes a denial of reasonable opportunity. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
7. Can an enquiry officer refuse to examine specific witnesses during a mandatory oral enquiry?
Yes, the enquiry officer can regulate proceedings and refuse to call witnesses for special and sufficient reasons recorded in writing, provided the refusal is not a blanket denial of the oral enquiry itself. (Para 14 )
8. Is the requirement for an oral enquiry under statutory rules mandatory if requested by the officer?
Yes, if the rule specifies that an oral enquiry shall be held if the charge-sheeted officer so desires, this requirement is mandatory and based on principles of natural justice and fair play. (Para 13 )
Judgement
GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I. : The short question of law which arises in this appeal is whether the appellant, the State of Bombay (now Maharashtra), shows that its predecessor State of Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter called the Government) had given a reasonable opportunity to the respondent, Nurul Latif Khan, to defend himself before it passed the final order on June 6, 1952, compulsorily retiring him under Article 353 of the Civil Service Regulations. By this order, the respondent was compulsorily retired and in relaxation of Art. 353, the Government was pleased to allow the respondent to draw a compassionate allowance equal to the pension which would have been admissible to him had he been invalidated.
2. This order was challenged by the respondent by filing a suit in the Court of the first Additional District Judge at Nagpur. In his plaint, the respondent alleged that the impugned order whereby he was compulsorily retired, was invalid and he claimed a declaration that it was ultra vires and inoperative. He also asked for a declaration that he was entitled to be restored to the post which he held on July 6, 1950, and that he should be given all pay, allowances, increments and promotions to which he would have been entitled if he had been permitted to continue in service. In the result, the respondent asked for a decree for Rs. 62,237/- with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the suit till realisation.
3. This claim was resisted by the appellant on several grounds. The principal ground on which the appellant challenged the respondent s claim, however, was that he had been given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, and so, the impugned order was perfectly valid and legal. Several other pleas were also raised by the appellant. On these pleas, the learned trial Judge framed appropriate issues. The issue with which we are concerned in the present appeal, however, centred round the question as to whether the Constitutional provision prescribed by Art. 311 affording protection to the respondent had been contravened. The trial Judge made a finding against the respondent on this issue. He also recorded his findings on the other issues with which we are not directly concerned in the present appeal. In regard to the money claim made by the respondent, the learned trial Judge made a finding that in case he was held entitled to such a relief, decree for Rs. 37, 237/- may have to be passed in his favour. In view of his conclusion that the impugned order was valid, no question arose for making such a decree in favour of the respondent. The respondent s suit, therefore, failed and was dismissed.
4. The respondent then took the matter in appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench. The High Court has, in substance, held that the constitutional provisions prescribed by the Article 311 have not been complied with by the appellant before it passed the impugned order against the respondent. It has found that the departmental enquiry which was held suffered from the serious infirmity that the enquiry officer did not hold an oral enquiry and did not allow an opportunity to the respondent to lead his oral evidence. It has also held that the second notice served by the appellant on the respondent calling upon him to show cause why the report made by the enquiry officer should not be accepted and appropriate punishment should not be inflicted on him, was defective, and that also made the impugned order invalid. The High Court appears to have taken the view that the impugned order does not show that the appellant had taken into account the explanation offered by the respondent in response to the second notice issued by the appellant. As a result of these findings, the High Court has reversed the conclusion of the trial Court on the main question and has found that the impugned order is invalid and inoperative. On that view, the High Court considered the money claim made by the respondent, and it confirmed the
