A government servant is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him, as required by Section 240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935.

Headnote:
GOVERNMENT SERVANT - DISMISSAL - REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY - EVIDENCE - CROSS-EXAMINATION - STATUTORY PROTECTION - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935, SECTION 240(3).
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, an Inspector in the Rationing Department, was served with a notice alleging that he had attempted to influence a Rationing Inspector to alter a statement made by a party in a rationing case. A departmental inquiry was held, and the plaintiff was found guilty of the charge. He was subsequently reduced in rank to a clerk.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the plaintiff was not given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him, as required by Section 240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935. The Court found that the plaintiff was not allowed to cross-examine the main witness against him, and that he was not given a copy of the witness's second statement, which was more incriminating than the first. The Court also found that the plaintiff was not given an opportunity to show cause against the second ground for his dismissal, which was that he had been warned by the authorities for failing to appear as a witness in a previous case.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff was given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him, as required by Section 240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935? 2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to arrears of pay.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the plaintiff was not given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him, as required by Section 240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935. The Court found that the plaintiff was not allowed to cross-examine the main witness against him, and that he was not given a copy of the witness's second statement, which was more incriminating than the first. The Court also found that the plaintiff was not given an opportunity to show cause against the second ground for his dismissal, which was that he had been warned by the authorities for failing to appear as a witness in a previous case. 2. The Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to arrears of pay, following the decision of the Privy Council in Lall v. M.E.S. (1948) AC 121.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal in part and modified the decree passed by the learned Judge by substituting a declaration that the order reducing the plaintiff from the rank of an Inspector to that of a clerk dated June 24, 1949, is illegal, void and of no legal effect. There will be a further declaration that the plaintiff continues to hold the office of Inspector from which he was reduced.

JUDGMENT - Chagla, C.J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that an order passed by the state of Bombay, which was the defendant, on 24-6-1949, reducing the plaintiff from the rank of an Inspector in the Rationing Department to a clerk, was illegal and void, that he still continues to hold the office of an Inspector, and also for a decree for a certain amount for arrears of salary.

The suit was heard by Mr. Hathi, the learned Judge, City Civil Court, and he gave the declaration to the plaintiff which he sought and also passed a decree in his favour for arrears of salary. The State of Bombay has now come in appeal, and the first question that we have to consider is whether the order of 24-6-1949, which is challenged was a legal and valid order.

2. On 18-1-1949, the plaintiff, who was then an Inspector in the Rationing Office, was served with a notice by the Controller of Rationing, Bombay, and in this notice it was stated that on 20-11-1948, the plaintiff called at the A Ward Rationing Office and requested the Rationing Inspector, one Rajmane, to effect suitable alterations in the statement of one P.D. Fernandes in connection with the absentee withdrawal of ration on the individual ration cards held by P.D. Fernandes with a view to weaken the whole case. A copy of Rajmanes statement was attached the plaintiff was given seven days time to show cause why no action should be taken against him for exercising his official position to influence the case under reference, and also to state whether he desired to be heard in person.

It will be clear from this that the plaintiff was being charged with having seen Rajmane on, 20-11-1943, and to have asked him to make suitable alterations in some statement which Fernanda had made in respect of a case that was pending against him, and what the plaintiff wanted Rajmane to do was to try and weaken the case against Fernandes by making these suitable alterations.

In the statement of Rajmane which was annexed to this notice, Rajmane says that the plaintiff asked him about the case of Fernandes. The plaintiff asked Rajmane where the case stood, what statement was recorded, and if Rajmane could do something in that case. Rajmane says that he flatly refused to do so, but asked him to see some other officials. It is pertinent to note that in this statement Rajmane does not say that the plaintiff asked him to alter the statement of Fernandes with a view to weaken the whole case.

On 15-2-1949, the plaintiff sent a reply to this notice. He says that the allegations made by Rajmane were false, that he was introduced to Rajmane by another Inspector by the name of Shah, and that he wanted to know about the case against Fernandes out of curiosity, and he had made it clear to Rajmane that he did not wish to influence him to make any change in the statement made by Fernandes. He says that he was innocent and that he was prepared to appear in person if the foregoing lines failed to convince the Controller of Rationing about the honest intentions of the plaintiff.

On 17-2-1949, the plaintiff was informed that he should appear before the Assistant Controller of Rationing on March 10 when a departmental inquiry would be held.

A departmental inquiry was duly held and at that inquiry all that happened was that the officer who held the inquiry, one Mr. Velloz, put certain questions to the plaintiff and the plaintiff was asked to cross-examine Rajmane who was present and the plaintiff asked certain questions to Rajmane.

On 30-3-1949, the plaintiff was served with another notice, which is the material notice in this case, and he was asked to show cause within seven days from the receipt thereof why he should not be reverted to his original post of a clerk. It was stated in this notice that the charge levelled against him as per the memorandum dated 18-1-1949, had been established. Therefore, it is clear that by this notice he was merely asked to show cause against the punishme

Click Here to Read the rest of this document