Back
1958 Supreme(Bom) 133
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Desai K.K. , J.
Appellants: D.A. Kelshikar
Vs.
Respondent: State of Bombay
Suit No. 719 of 1953
Decided On: 19.09.1958
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: M.R. Mody and P.R. Vakil, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: Dubash and Mistry, Advs.
A government servant is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to show cause against any proposed action before being dismissed or punished, but this opportunity may be satisfied by a departmental inquiry that is duly carried out in accordance with the rules.
Headnote:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 311(2) - SHOW CAUSE NOTICE - REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY - DEPARTMENTAL INQUIRY - ENHANCEMENT OF PUNISHMENT - DOUBLE PUNISHMENT - ARTICLE 20(2) - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a Sub-Inspector of Police, was dismissed from service after a departmental inquiry found him guilty of attending a drinking party in violation of government policy. The plaintiff challenged the dismissal, arguing that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment, that the punishment was enhanced after he had already suffered the initial punishment, and that this amounted to double punishment.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiff had been given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment, as he had been provided with a copy of the charge sheet and the documents relied upon, and had been given an opportunity to respond to the charges. The court also held that the enhancement of punishment was not a case of double punishment, as the initial punishment was imposed by the District Superintendent of Police, while the enhanced punishment was imposed by the Inspector General of Police in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff was given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment? 2. Whether the punishment was enhanced after the plaintiff had already suffered the initial punishment? 3. Whether the enhancement of punishment amounted to double punishment?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaintiff had been given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment, as he had been provided with a copy of the charge sheet and the documents relied upon, and had been given an opportunity to respond to the charges. This was in accordance with the requirements of Article 311(2) of the Constitution, which provides that a government servant must be given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against any proposed action before being dismissed or punished. 2. The court held that the enhancement of punishment was not a case of double punishment, as the initial punishment was imposed by the District Superintendent of Police, while the enhanced punishment was imposed by the Inspector General of Police in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, the plaintiff was not being punished twice for the same offense.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, holding that he had been given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment, that the enhancement of punishment was not a case of double punishment, and that the dismissal was therefore valid.
(2) The main contention on which plaintiff prays for the aforesaid declation are contained in paragraphs 14(A) and 14(b) of the Plaint. The Plaintiff relies upon the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The Plaintiff case is that he has not been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him s required under the Article and that the show cause notice tendered to him was not in conformity with the provisions of the Articles
(3) The plaintiff contends that the Defendent did not give to the Plaintiff any opportunity of showing cause against the accuracy of the facts founds by the District Superintendent of Police in a departmental inquiry against the plaintiff. The second ground on which he plaintiff relies is that in January, 1952 when the show cause notice was tendered to the laintiff, in fact the plaintiff had already suffered the punishment inflicted upon him by the District Superintendent of Police and it was therfore not competent for the Defendant to revise the punishment already inflicted after lapse of two years. The Plaintiff contends that the order of dismissal amounted to double punishment right of the Plaintiff under Article 20(2)of the Constitution of India.
(4) There are several other gounds mentioned in para 14 of the Plaint for challenging the validity of the order of dismissal. These other grounds are however not pressed before me and it is unncessary therefore to summarise them here.
(5) The facts leading to this suit are shortly as follows: The Plaintiff joined the police force in the State of Baroda with the State of Bombay, the Plaintiff was absorbed in the police force of the State of Bombay and on 1-8-1949 was confirmed as Sub-Inspector of Police and was at material time attached to Karjan police station in Baroda District. On 31-1-1950 the Plaintiff was found in the garden house of one Haribai Ramdas at village Atali.. At that house, what is prescribed as vet party (drinking party) was then in progress. On 2-2-1950, the District Superintendent of Police, Baroda district placed the plaintiff under suspension from 1-2-1950 on the ground that the plaintiff was involved in an offence under the prohibtion act and th3e matter was still under investigation and that the continuance of the plaintiff in office was likely to result in suppression of evidence. Thereafter, the departmental enquiries proceeding were proceeded in connction with the said incident. Statements of several persons were taken and ultimately on 21-3-1950, the District Superintendent of Police, Baroda, framed a charge against the plaintiff. A copy of the charge framed was served on the plaintiff. The charge framed as follows:-
"Serious misconduct in that you .. ... .. .. attended a drinking party in the garden house of Mr.Haribhai Ramdas at village Atali on 31-1-1950 in flagrant violation of the policy laid down by Government for rigid observance by all public servants vide Government Circular, Political and Serviced Department No.1581/34 dated 13-7-1948. Copies of the following documents are sent herewith in suport of the charge."
(6) The documents referred to are copies of a panchanama inquiry report, statements made by several persons, a letter addressed to the Collector by the Mamlatdar Baroda and the aforesaid circular dated 13-7-1948.
(7) It is admitted that the plaintiff received this charge sheet and the documents referred to in the charge-sheet. All these documents were also forwarded to the Dy.Superintendent of Police, Dhaboi for completing the departmental inquiry proceedings and submitting a report to the District Superintendent of Police for final ord
