S GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader.

(2.) The petitioner, while in service as a Police Constable, was proceeded against on counts of indiscipline. An enquiry was held. The Enquiry Officer reported that the petitioner was not guilty of the charges. The Disciplinary Authority, obviously, proposed to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Though a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority, that did not contain any specific grounds, on which, the Disciplinary Authority was proceeding or proposing to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. However, in a composite notice, the Disciplinary Authority stated that it is unable to agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, having regard to the entire materials on record and because the petitioner was given ample opportunity to substantiate his case before the Enquiry Officer. It was further stated that disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, there was a proposal to impose the punishment of removal from service.

(3.) From one angle, it could be said that if all the grounds and reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer are to be stated in the show cause notice issued by the Disciplinary Authority, that Authority could be accused of having prejudged the issue. But though not to be termed as prejudging the entire issue, judging an issue to conclude as to whether it is necessary to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer is a necessary ingredient and a jurisdictional fact to trigger the issuance of a show cause notice disagreeing with the findings of an Enquiry Officer. Therefore, while the Disciplinary Authority issues a notice to show cause against a proposal to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority cannot be accused of having prejudged the issue, merely because the reasons for the proposal to disagree is made known to the parties. If the grounds of the proposal to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer are not made known to the delinquent, the show cause notice cannot be treated as a notice with any ground for the proposed action. When the enquiry report is in favour of the delinquent and the superior authority proposes to disagree with it, it is appropriate, in the fitness of things, that the reasons forming the foundation of the decision to issue a show cause notice calling upon the delinquent to show cause to a proposal to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer are notified to the delinquent. The same is a principle of natural justice which is embedded in the rule of fair hearing, because, if the delinquent is called upon to show cause against a decision in his favour in the realm of service, it is necessary that he be told the grounds on which an action is proposed against him, overruling the findings of the Enquiry Officer. So much so, a notice to show cause against a proposal to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer has to contain the reasons for the proposal. I may hasten to add that it is not the requirement that all the reasons, even if they are either minute or remote, have also to be stated. It may not also be necessary to explicitly state all that passes through the mind of the Disciplinary Authority, while it is necessary to clearly indicate to the delinquent the specific ground on which the Disciplinary Authority proposes to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer.