Honble KAPUR, J. — The respondent in this appeal was dismissed from Government service on several charge on which enquiry was held and this dismissal was challenged by him in a writ petition which was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 30.07.1991. This decision of the learned Single Judge - has been challenged by the appellant in this special appeal.

(2). The respondent was a UDC in the Appellant Organisation Board of Indian Medicine Raj. An enquiry against him was held on as many as 16 charges. The enquiry officer submitted his report and the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal on 1.10.1988. One of the grounds raised in the writ petition was that the petitioner was not given the copy of the enquiry report before passing the order of dismissal and as such he was not given an opportunity of making a representation against the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. This point was argued and reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramjan Khan (1). In this case their Lordships have held that by virtue of 42nd amendment of the Constitution, the only requirement which has been dispensed with is in relation to giving of show cause notice before the proposed punishment. Supply of copy of the enquiry report by the disciplinary authority where the enquiry has been held by a person other than the disciplinary authority is an implicit requirement of principles of natural justice. In view of this it was held that there was a violation of principles of natural justice and also the provisions of Rule 16 of the CCA Rules. In view of this conclusion the other questions raised in the writ petition were not decided and the order of dismissal was quashed, giving a direction to reinstate the petitioner in service. The appellant was given liberty to pass appropriate orders according to law, after giving notice to the respondent to make a representation against the enquiry report. Against this decision the Board organisation has filed this special appeal and at the stage of admission both sides have been heard on the point on which the learned Single Judge has decided the writ petition.

(3). We may refer to the relevant provisions on the basis of which the matter is to be decided. Article 311 of the Constitution of India was amended by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 and thereafter it reads as under :

311. (1) No person who is a member of civil service of the Union or an all India service or a civil service under the Union or State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.

(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of these charges:

Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty imposed:

Provided further that this clause shall not apply-

(a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or

(b) where an authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce his rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry.

(c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry.

(3) If, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry as is referred to in clause (2), the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be final.

The foll

Click Here to Read the rest of this document