Supreme Court Upholds High Court's Quashing of Dismissal Order in Service Law Case as Reasonable Opportunity Not Given Under Article 311(2). Article 311(2) requires that the government servant be informed of all grounds, including previous punishments, relied upon for enhanced penalty in the second show cause notice; omission of such grounds vitiated the dismissal.

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the dismissal order of a civil servant on the ground of violation of reasonable opportunity under Article 311(2); appeal by the State against the High Court's quashing of the dismissal.

The respondent sought quashing of the dismissal order dated January 6, 1959, for denial of reasonable opportunity; the appellant State sought to set aside the High Court's order and uphold the dismissal.

The Government dismissed the respondent relying on two previous punishments not disclosed in the second show cause notice; the High Court found this violated Article 311(2) and quashed the order; the State appealed by special leave to the Supreme Court.

The High Court of Mysore quashed the dismissal order on February 14, 1962, holding that the previous punishments relied upon for enhanced punishment were not put to the respondent for explanation, and left it open to the State to proceed afresh after complying with Article 311(2). The State appealed to the Supreme Court.

Whether the Government was required to disclose in the second show cause notice the previous punishments of a government servant when such punishments were taken into account for imposing enhanced punishment of dismissal, in order to satisfy the reasonable opportunity requirement under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Whether the government servant's presumptive knowledge of his own previous punishments dispensed with the need to disclose them in the second show cause notice, thereby avoiding prejudice and satisfying natural justice.

The appellant argued that the Government is entitled to take into consideration the previous record of a government servant in awarding punishment and it is not incumbent on it to bring that fact to the notice of the government servant in the second show cause notice. The appellant alternatively argued that since the officer had knowledge of his two earlier punishments which formed the basis of the enhanced punishment, he was not prejudiced by their non-disclosure, and therefore the principles of natural justice were not violated. The respondent argued that a government servant cannot be punished for acts or omissions unless those acts or omissions are subject of specific charges and are enquired into in accordance with law. The respondent further argued that even if the Government could take into consideration a government servant's previous record in awarding punishment, the facts that form the basis of that punishment should at least be disclosed in the second notice giving an opportunity to explain the earlier conduct.

Under Article 311(2) of the Constitution, before imposing a punishment based not only on the findings of the departmental enquiry but also on the previous record or previous punishments of the government servant, the competent authority must disclose such grounds in the second show cause notice and give a reasonable opportunity to explain them. The doctrine of presumptive knowledge or purposeless enquiry cannot substitute for the constitutional requirement of reasonable opportunity.

The doctrine of 'presumptive knowledge' or that of 'purposeless enquiry' is subversive of the principle of 'reasonable opportunity'. It is not, therefore, sufficient that other considerations on which a higher punishment is proposed are present in the mind of the competent authority or are supported by the record of service of the civil servant concerned.

In 1957, the respondent was holding the post of Assistant to the Additional Development Commissioner, Planning, Bangalore. On June 25, 1957, the Government of Mysore appointed Shri G.V.K. Rao as Enquiry Officer to conduct a departmental enquiry against the respondent for false claim of allowances and fabrication of vouchers. The Enquiry Officer framed four charges and after enquiry recommended reduction in rank. The Government issued a second show cause notice to the respondent, which was served on February 4, 1958, proposing dismissal. The respondent made a representation that the entire case was foisted on him. After considering the representation and the opinion of the Mysore Public Service Commission, the Government passed an order on January 6, 1959, dismissing the respondent from service, relying on two previous punishments imposed on April 1, 1954, and March 13, 1957, which were not mentioned in the second show cause notice. The respondent filed a writ petition under Article 226 in the High Court of Mysore. The High Court quashed the dismissal order on February 14, 1962, on the ground that the previous punishments were not disclosed in the show cause notice. The State of Mysore appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on August 22, 1963, affirming the High Court's decision.

• Constitution of India: Article 311(2), Article 226
• Government of India Act, 1935: Section 240(3)