PREM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHERE in a regular departmental enquiry, the notice to show cause against the punishment proposed to be imposed upon the delinquent official, lists out all the punishments, major and minor, as contained in the relevant' service rules, is such notice to be taken to denote, denial of reasonable opportunity as envisaged by the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, (hereinafter referred to as 'Service Rules'), thereby vitiating the order of dismissal from service. Herein lies the controversy in appeal.

(2.) PREM Kumar the Plaintiff here, joined service on May 2, 1962 as leave reserve clerk in the court of the District Judge, Ropar, Later he was posted as ahlmad in the court' of the judicial Magistrate, Ropar and in due course came to be promoted as Assistant. On September 26, 1975, there was a complain by one Sarmukh Singh relating to the loss of some papers from the judicial record of a case decided by the Judicial Magistrate, Ropar, The Plaintiff was the ahlmad in that court during that time. A preliminary enquiry was held into the matter and on April 2, 1976, a charge -sheet in respect thereof was served upon the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff denied the charges and submitted his explanation which the District Judge did not find to be satisfactory. The Senior Sub -Judge was then appointed the Enquiry Officer, who, by his report of May 27, 1976 found against the Plaintiff, on all the charges and thereafter on September 16, 1976, the Plaintiff was served with a show -cause notice of the proposed punishment to be imposed upon him. As upon this notice. hinges the legality of the impugned order of dismissal, it deserves to be reproduced in extenso. It reads as under: Enquiry report from Shri P.C. Singal Senior Subordinate Judge Rupnagar (Enquiry Officer) has been received in this office in which you have been held responsible few the loss of documents in case Sarmukh Singh v. Surta Singh. One of the below noted penalties can be imposed upon you:

(3.) THE reasonable opportunity envisaged by the Service Rules is pari materia with what was required to be afforded under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, as it stood before the Forty -Second Amendment of the Constitution. This as laid down by the Supreme Court in Khem Chand v. Union of India : A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 300 includes: