Case Note & Summary
The respondent was an employee under the State of Uttar Pradesh. A departmental inquiry was initiated against him on charges that he had allowed his private interests to conflict with his public duties. Charges were framed, and he was called upon to submit a written statement of defence and was given an opportunity to adduce evidence. After considering the inquiry report, which found the charges true, the State called upon the respondent under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India to show cause why he should not be demoted and compulsorily retired. The respondent submitted a written explanation objecting to the inquiry procedure. Subsequently, the respondent was given a copy of the report and again called upon to show cause against the proposed penalty of reduction in rank, and he submitted another written explanation. The State Public Service Commission was consulted by the Government regarding the punishment, but it was not supplied with the respondent's explanation in answer to the second show-cause notice. The Government ultimately passed an order dated September 12, 1953, reducing the rank of the respondent with effect from August 2, 1952. The respondent filed petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court challenging the legality of the Government order. The High Court found that though the State Public Service Commission was consulted, it was not supplied with the written explanation submitted by the respondent in answer to the second show-cause notice, and held that the order of the Government was invalid because the provisions of Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution had not been fully complied with. The State appealed to the Supreme Court. On appeal, additional evidence was sought to be adduced on behalf of the State to show that the State Public Service Commission was consulted even after the submission of the respondent's explanation, but it was found that there was sufficient opportunity for the State to place all relevant materials before the High Court itself. The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the provisions of Article 320(3)(c) are mandatory. The provided text does not contain the final decision of the Supreme Court.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Public Service Commission Consultation - Article 320(3)(c) - Mandatory Nature - Constitution of India, Art. 320(3)(c) - The High Court found that the State Government, though consulting the Public Service Commission, did not supply the respondent's written explanation in answer to the second show-cause notice, and held the order invalid for non-compliance with Art. 320(3)(c). On appeal, the Supreme Court considered whether the provision is mandatory and allowed additional evidence to be adduced regarding consultation after the explanation. Held, the issue was whether Art. 320(3)(c) is mandatory or directory, but the final decision is not mentioned in the provided text. (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the provisions of Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution are mandatory, and whether non-compliance with it renders the order of punishment invalid.
