GENERAL MANAGER RANI MANGAMMAL TRANSPORT Vs. VICTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 21. 2. 1997, made in writ petition No. 11643 of 1996, setting aside the order of dismissal passed against the respondent herein on the solitary ground that the report of the Enquiry Officer was furnished to the respondent along with the show cause notice and before taking a decision with regard to punishment no opportunity was given to the writ petitioner. The learned Judge has taken the said view placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hydrabad v. B. Karunakar and Ors. , In that case, the Apex Court has held that unless or otherwise the prejudice caused to the employee on account of the failure to issue the second show cause notice is made out, the second show cause notice would only be a mechanical ritual without any basis or purpose. In order to appreciate that finding, it is useful to refer paragraph 5 of the Judgment, which reads thus :

(2.) IN this case, the enquiry officer's report has been sent by the disciplinary authority along with the notice which called upon the respondent to offer his explanation on the proposed punishment. When the prejudice caused to the respondent has not been made out, the non-issuance of the second show cause notice by furnishing the enquiry officer's report would not by itself be a ground for setting aside the order of dismissal. The same principle has been followed by the Supreme Court in its following subsequent decisions State Bank of Patiala v. B. K. Sharma,rajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1996 (6) SCC 232 and Aligar Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan, In order to appreciate the legal position it is appropriate to refer the relevant part of the ruling in Mansoor Alik Kahn's case which reads in paragraphs 20 to 24 as follows :

(3.) IN view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments referred to above, we are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge setting aside the order of dismissal of the respondent from service, on the solitary ground that a second show cause notice had not been served on the respondent prior to forming opinion as to the punishment to be inflicted is not sustainable in law. The impugned order of the learned single Judge is, therefore, set aside and the order of termination is restored. The appeal is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.