STATE OF MYSORE Vs. K MANOHE GOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is preferred against the Order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Mysore at Bangalore quashing the order of the Government dated March 13, 1957 dismissing the respondent from service.

(2.) In the year 1957 the respondent was holding the post of an Assistant to the Additional Development Commissioner, Planning, Bangalore. On June 25, 1957, the Government of Mysore appointed Shri G. V. K. Rao, I.A.S., Additional Development Commissioner, as the Enquiry Officer to conduct a departmental enquiry against him in respect of the false claims for allowances and fabrication of vouchers to support them. After giving the usual notice, the said Enquiry Officer framed four charges against him. After making the necessary enquiry in accordance with law, the said Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Government with the recommendation that the respondent might be reduced in rank. After considering the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Government issued to him a notice calling upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The relevant part of the said show cause notice reads as follows:

(3.) It will be seen from the said Order that the reason for giving enhanced punishment above that recommended by the Inquiry Officer as well as by the Service Commission was that earlier he had committed similar offences and was punished-once on April 1, 1954 and again on March 13, 1957. In the second notice those facts were not given as reasons for the proposed punishment of dismissal from service. The respondent filed a petition in the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for quashing the said order and the High Court quashed the order of dismissal on the ground that the said two circumstances on which the Government relied for the proposed infliction of punishment of dismissal were not put to the petitioner for being explained by him, in the show cause notice, which was issued to the petitioner on February 4, 1958. The impugned order was accordingly set aside leaving it open to the State Government to dispose of the matter afresh if it desisted to do so after compliance with the requirements of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. Hence the appeal.