BABU LAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have had the advantage of seeing the judgment prepared by my learned brother, Takru, J. with which I entirely agree. I only wish to add some words of my own in support of the conclusion arrived at in his judgment.

(2.) In the proviso to Sec. 48(2) (b) (vi) the important words to be noted are "explaining the conduct on account of which it is proposed to take action against him." Thus the opportunity which has to be afforded is with regard to the conduct in respect of which 'action is proposed to be taken', and not those which were taken into consideration by the Government for satisfying itself that the President should be removed. If the intention was that the opportunity to explain the conduct should relate to the whole conduct which satisfies the Government, then the words would have been "explaining the conduct on which the Government was satisfied," or words to that effect. I, therefore, entirely agree that the notice given to the President to explain a particular conduct need not embrace the whole conduct which has satisfied the Government, but may include only some of it which the Government thinks is good enough to support his removal and may, in case of necessity, give a fresh notice subsequently in respect of other conduct.

(3.) Under Sec, 48(3) the suspension order can be passed "against whom action is proposed under sub-Sec. (6) of clause (b) of sub-Sec. (2) " For the passing of the suspension order, therefore, it is not a condition precedent that an explanation should have been called from the Present. As soon as it is proposed to take action for his removal, he can be suspended. This order therefore is not dependent upon either the issue of or contents of the notice or otherwise demanding explanation. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the proposal to take action only comes into existence with the notice asking for explanation. I am unable to agree with this contention. The language used is "against whom action is proposed." This only means 'against whom it has been decided to take action.' The explanation may be asked later on but as soon as that decision is reached, the suspension order can be passed. This suspension order continues "until the proceedings are over." Such proceedings can only be over, either by the actual removal of the President or by the final decision not to proceed with his removal on the basis of the satisfaction which resulted in the proposal to remove him. Thus in a case where an explanation has been called in respect of some of the conduct only, and it is ultimately found that that conduct was not sufficient for his removal, the Government may immediately start proceedings in respect of other matters which had not either deliberately or inadvertently been included in the previous notice, and in that case the proceedings will continue even after the fresh notice for explanation has been issued and the suspension order passed originally will continue. The Government not having dropped the proceedings for his removal, it cannot be said that the proceedings are over.