A Government servant is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him, as required by Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution.

Headnote:
ARTICLE 311(2) - REMOVAL FROM SERVICE - CIVIL SERVICES RULES 55 - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a probationary Naib Tahsildar, was served with charges against him and asked to show cause. He submitted an explanation and requested a personal hearing, which was denied. A departmental enquiry was held, and the appellant was not allowed to inspect certain records or cross-examine witnesses. He was eventually removed from service without being given a proper opportunity to defend himself.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the appellant was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him, as required by Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution. The court also held that the departmental enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 55 of the Civil Services Rules.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him, as required by Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 55 of the Civil Services Rules?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellant was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him, as required by Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution. The court held that the opportunity which the law requires should be given to the Government servant to show cause both against the punishment and the grounds, must be a real opportunity, an opportunity which would make it possible for him to persuade the competent authority to come to a different conclusion from the one at which he has tentatively arrived. 2. The court held that the departmental enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 55 of the Civil Services Rules, which require that the person charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses, to give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called, as he may wish.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of the State of Madhya Pradesh removing the appellant from service.

Judgment -

1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from an order of Mr. Justice Bhutt, in Miscellaneous Petition No. 252 of 1954, dismissing the appellants Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. The appellant was a probationary Naito Tahsildar in the service of the State of Madhya Pradesh. On 29-2-1955 he was served with a copy of certain charges against him and was asked to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. He submitted his explanation in writing and he also asked for a hearing in person.

3. A departmental enquiry was then held against the appellant by the Deputy Commissioner, Amraoti. During the course of that enquiry, the appellant asked for inspection of certain records to which reference had been made in the charge sheet. He was allowed inspection of all the records except two. Further according to him, he was not given a hearing in person even though he had asked for and was entitled to it under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules.

4. After the completion of the departmental enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner submitted his report to the Government. Thereupon, a notice in the following terms was served On the appellant.

Reg. A. D. 14-10-52.

"Government had ordered departmental enquiry against you on 6 separate charges and the Deputy Commissioner, Amraoti, was asked to conduct the enquiry. A copy of report of the Deputy Commissioner, Amraoti, dated the 15th September 1952 in respect of the enquiry is herewith supplied to you for information.

2. You are called upon to show cause within fifteen days from the date of receipt of this memorandum why you should not be dismissed from service..........."

(Exhibit 5)

After the receipt of this notice, the appellant wrote a letter to the Government in which he stated-

I was given inspection of some of the records and when that was done I submitted my written statement on 14-6-1952 in which I requested Deputy Commissioner, Amraoti, for an opportunity to explain my case personally before the report is sent.

Since I desired that I should be personally heard I expected an enquiry to be held as contemplated by Rule 55 of the Rules in the Appendix to Part I. S. No. 13 o£ the General Book Circulars. No such enquiry was held. No witnesses were examined or cross-examined, no opportunity was given to me to prove my submissions and report dated 15-9-52 was sent by the Deputy Commissioner, Amraoti, to the Government without giving me a chance either to disprove the allegations or to prove my contentions. The Deputy Commissioner, Amraoti, has based his report dated 16-9-52 largely on the foundation of the comments of Shri K. W. Kathaley, Sub-Divisional Officer. Chandur, dated 22-6-52.

When I came to know that Shri K. W. Kathaley, sent his comments to Deputy Commissioner, Amraoti, I applied to Deputy Commissioner, for inspection of Shri Kathaleys comments. I was given inspection of the said documents.

I again expected that I would be called upon to attend some enquiry in a quasi-judicial form vide paras 11 and 12 Part 1, S. No. 13 G. B. C. No evidence was admitted or recorded.

Then I received suddenly without any prior idea whatsoever the memorandum under reference with a copy of the report of Deputy Commissioner, Amraoti, dated 15-9-52." He then made certain complaints about the failure of the Deputy Commissioner to give him an inspection of some of the records and made the following prayers :

(i) a proper enquiry be held and opportunity be given to him to prove his submissions, and evidence be recorded.

(ii) he may be permitted inspection of all the records referred to by Deputy Commissioner, Amraoti.

(iii) he may be personally heard;

(iv) he may be given opportunity after inspection of the records to show the unfortunate errors in the said report;

(v) he may be permitted assistance of a legal adviser for inspection of the records and such other matters; and

(vi) then he may be called upon to put in his defence.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document