GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT AND ORS. Vs. K. CHIDAMBARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the main writ appeal itself is taken up for hearing and disposal today.

(2.) THE writ appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 9853 of 1983 decided on 31.10.1988.

(3.) THE writ petitioner questioned the dismissal through the writ petition which was allowed by the learned Single Judge finding that there has been a violation of the rules of natural justice, and besides, the order of dismissal was passed by the competent authority without considering the representation made by the writ petitioner against the second show cause notice. It was noticed by the learned single judge that under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner was entitled to be granted a reasonable opportunity of making a representation on the penalty proposed, and as the right to receive such a notice under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India was a vested right, the Constitution Forty -Second Amendment by which the necessity of the second show cause notice was done away with, could not take away the right which had already vested in the writ petitioner. The issuance of a second show cause notice is a mandatory requirement and the representation made to the second show cause notice was of necessity to be taken into consideration by the punishing authority before imposing the punishment. But since the same had not been done, the learned single judge held that the dismissal could not be justified. It was also noticed that certain documents asked for by the writ petitioner to defend himself before the enquiry officer were withheld and therefore there was a denial of proper opportunity to the writ petitioner to defend himself properly.