Case Details

Citation(s)
1963 SLG 3425 = 1963 SLD 3425 = 1963 PLD 295
Lahore High Court
  Letters Patent Appeal No. 113 of 1962, decided on 21st Feb ruary 1963.
Presented By: Manzur Qadir, C. J. and Faizullah, J  
Naseem Hassan Shah for Appellant.   Syed Zaheer Abbas for
Respondent.   Dates of hearing : 11th, 22nd, 23rd, 25th and 28th January 1963.

MUHAMMAD IHSAN KHAN-Appellant  

VERSUS

  THE PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN-Respondent

Law: Government of India Act, 1935

Section:

(a) Government of India Act, 1935-------   -----S. 240(3)-Government servant-"Reasonable opportunity of showing cause" against dis missal-Includes opportunity to produce witnesses-Two stages for showing cause-(1); Departmental inquiry (2) when punishment pro posed has been determined-Failure of Enquiry Officer to give oppor tunity to produce witnesses at second stage-Report of Enquiry Officer factually incorrect in two matters-Disregard of require ments of Cabinet Secretariat (Establishment Division) Letter No. 13/7/51 SEI, dated 15-9-1951 - Enquiry vitiated - Order of dismissal, illegal.   The words in section 240(3), Government of India Act, 1935, "the action proposed to be taken" point to the stage when actual punishment is provisionally determined, i.e., when the punishing authority has come to a definite conclusion of terminating the service of the civil servant concerned.   An enquiry against a dismissed servant is as it were, in two parts, where there is, first, a departmental inquiry and then a notice to show cause is served upon him by the authority which proposes to dismiss him, the Court has got to look at both parts of the inquiry in order to come to the conclusion whether a reasonable opportunity was afforded to the servant to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him.   The right of calling defence is an indispensable attribute of a "show-cause notice". It will be complete negation of justice to ask a civil servant to show cause against loss of status on certain charges, permit him only to say that the charges were incorrect, but refuse him to call evidence to prove his assertions. Cut out the right of defence from a show-cause notice and the constitutional guarantee provided for by subsection (3) is com pletely cut out. The provisions of subsection (3) of section 240 would be rendered wholly illusory if a civil servant is merely given right of making a representation denying the correctness of the charges without proving it. The statutory guarantee provided for in subsection (3) of section 240 is founded on the principles of natural justice that no one should be condemned…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register