# M. GOPALA KRISHNA NAIDU v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - **Citation:** [1968] 1 S.C.R. 355 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1967-08-24 - **Case number:** CIVIL APPELi.ATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2376 of 1966 - **Bench:** J. C. Shah, s. M. SiKRI, J. M. Shela! - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/m-gopala-krishna-naidu-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh-4138 - **Pages:** 7 ## Headnote Got"emment Servicmmendation the prosecution was dropped but a departmental inquiry was held on the same charges. The Inquiry Officer found the appellant not guilty but the Government disagreed with that finding and served a notice to show cause why he should not be dismissed. By an order dated Decem· ber 5, I 960 the Government held that the charges against the appellant were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. It also held that the suspension and the departmental inquiry "were not wholly unjustified''. The order then directed that the appellant should be reinstated in service with effect from the date of the order and retired from that date, he having already attained superannuation age on September 5, 1952 alnd that the entire period of absence from duty should be treated as period spent on duty under F.R. 54(5) for purposes of pension only, but that he should not be allowed any pay beyond what he had actually .received or what was allowed to him by way of subsistence allow· ance during the period of his suspension. · B c 0 E F On a representation made by him against the said order hav· G ing been rejected the appellant filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Madhya Prased the H petition but granted certificate to file this appeal and that is how this appeal has come up before us. ... A B 0 J> r G H GOPALA KRISHNA v. llADHYA PRADESH (She/al, J.) 367 Fundamental Rule 54 on the interpretation of which thia appeal deiJends is as follows:- "(l) When a Government servant who has been dismissed, removed or suspended is reinstated; the authority competent to order the reinstatement shall" consider and make a specific order'- (a) Regarding the pay and allowance to be paid to the Government servant for the period of his absence from duty; and (b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty; (2) Where the authority mentioned in sub-rule (I) is of opinion that the Government servant has been fully exonerated or in the case of suspension, that it was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall be given the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or suspended, as the case may be. (3) In other cases, the Government servant shall be given such proportion of such pay and. aUowances as . such competent authority may prescribe. Provided that ihe payment of allowances under clause (2) or clause (3) shall be subject to all other condi,ions under which such allowances are admissible. Provided further that such' proportion of such pay and allowances shall not .be less than the subsistence and other allowances admissible under Rule 53. (4) In a case falling under .clause (2), the period of absence from duty shaoll be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes. (5) In a case falling under clause (3) the period of absence from duty sh~ll not be treated as a period spent on duty, unless such competent authority specifically directs that it shall be so tr~ted for any specified ·purpose. Provided that if the Government servant so desired, such au\hority maly direct that the period of absence from dutr shall be. converted into leave of any kind due and admissible to the Government servant" On behalf of t!)e appellant two points were-urged before the High Court; (l) that before passi11g the impugned order the appellant ought to have been 'given a reasonable opportunity to· show aruse against the action proposed and (2) . that it was clause 2 and not clause 5 which applied to his case. The High Court rejected both the eontentions and, as aforesaid, dismissed the petition. llOPaJDIB COUllT llBPOllTS [1968] 1 s.0.11. Counsel for the appellant canvassed the same contentions before A us. Mr. Sen on behalf of the State, however, argued that F.R. 54 does nl>t in express terms lay down ·a duty on the pan of the authority to give an opportunity to show cause to the government employee and therefore the question would be whether the Rule imposed such a duty by neoessary implication. He urged that the Rule cannot be said to lay down such duty by B implications inasmuch as the impugned order is only a consequen· tial order. That it was passed following a departmental inquiry held against the appellant during the course of which opportunity to show cause was already afforded. He contended that the only duty laid down by F.R. 54 •was that the Government should' consider whether. the appellant was fully exonerated and in case of suspension whether such suspension was whoily unjustified and C that once the authority formed the opinion that it was not so, els. 3 and S would apply. The Government having formed the opinion that the suspension was not wholly unjustified clause S applied and the impugned order was not liable to he challenged. The first question which requires consideration is whether there was a duty on the competent authority to afford an opportuD nity to the appellant to show cause before that authority formed the opinion as to whether he was fully exonerated ll'lld whether his suspension was wholly unjustified. Under F.R. 54 where ·a Government servant is reinstated, the authority has to oonsider and make a specific order (i) regarding pay and allowances payable to him for the period of his absence from duty and (ii) whether such period of absence should be treal'ed as one spent E on duty. The consideration of these questions depends on whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Government servant had been fully exonerated and in case of suspensinn whether it was wholly unjustified. If the authority forms such an opinion the Government servant is entitled to full pay and allowances which he would have been entitled to had the order of dismissal, removal or suspension. as the case may be, not been passed. Where the F authority cannot form such an opinion the Government servant may be given such proportion of pay and allowa'nces as the authority may prescribe. In the former case the period of absence from duty has to be treated as period spent on duty for all purposes and in the latter case such period is not to be treated as period spent on duty. But the authority has the power in suitable cases to direct that such period of absenoe shall be treated as period G spent on duty in· which case the government servant would be entitled to full pay and allowances. ft is true that the order under F.R. 54 is in a sense a consequential nrder in that it would be passed after an order of reinstatement is made. But the fatt that it is a consequential order does B not determine the question whether the government servant has to be given an opportunity to show cause or not. It is also true I A B c D E F G R GOPAJ,A KRISHNA V. ~"n"VA PRADESH (Site/at, J.) 359 that in a ca~e where reinstatement is ordered after a departmental inquiry the government servant would ordinarily have had an opportunity to show cause. In such a case, the authority no doubt would have before him the entire record including the explanation given by the government servant from which all the facts and circumstances of the case would be before the authority and from which he can form the opinion as to whether he has been fully exonerated or not and in case of suspension whether such suspension was wholly unjustified or not. In such a case the order passed under a rule such as the present Fundamental Rule might be said to be a consquential order following a departmental inquiry. But there are three classes of cases as laid down by the proviso in Art. 311 where al departmental inquiry would not be held, vi~ .. (a) where a person is dismissed, removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, (b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold such an inquiry; and (c) where the President or the Governor as the case may be is satisfied that in the interest of security of the State it is not expedient to hold sudh inquiry. Since there w.:iuld be no inquiry in these classes of cases the authority would not have before him any explanation by the government servant. The authority in such eases would have to consider and pass the order merely on such facts which might be placed before him by the department concerned. The order in such a case would be ex-parte without the authority having the other side of the picture. In such cases the order that such authority, would pass would not be a consequential order as where a departmental inquiry has been held. Therefore, an order passed under Fundamental Rule 45 is not always a consequential order nor is such order a continuation of the departmental proceeding taken against the employee. It is true as Mr. Sen pointed out tha1t F.R. 54 does not in express terms lay down that the authority shall give to the employee concerned the opportunity to show cause before he passes the order. Even so, the question is whether the rule casts suc;1 a duty on the authority by implication. The order as to whether a niven case falls under cl. 2 or cl. 5 of the Fundamental Rule ~nu st d~pend on the ex!lmination by the authority of all the facts and circumstances of the case and his forming the opinion therefrom of tw.o factual findings; ~hether the employee was fully exonerated and_ m case of suspension whether it was wholly unjustified. Besides, an order passed under this rule would obviously affect the government servant adversely if it is one made under els. 3 and 5: Consideration under this rule depending as it does on facts and circumstances in their entirety. passing an order on the basis of factual finding arrived at from such facts and circumstances and such an order resulting in peouniary loss to the government servant must be held to be an objective rather than a subjective function. 360 SUPllElllli COURT lllll'ORTS [1968] l 11.C,B. The very nature of the function imp~ the duty lo act judicially. In such a case if an opportunity lo show cause against the action, proposed is not afforded, as admittedly it was. not done in the present case, the · ordec is liable to be struck down as invalid on the ground that it is one in breach of the principles of natural justice. In the State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Devi and others(') this Court held that an brder fixing the date of birth of the government servant concerned there and declaring that she should be deemed to have retired on a: particular date on the basis of the date so determined without giving an opportunity to show cause against the action proposed was invalid on the ground that the determination was in violation of the principles of natural justice. lt was there observed : - "The State was undoubtedly not precluded, merely because of the acceptance of the date of birth of the first respondent in the service register, from holding an· inquiry if there existed sufficient grounds for holding such enquiry and for refixing her date of birth. But the decision of the State could be based upon the result of an enquiry in a manner consonant with the basic concept of justice. An order by the State to the prejudice of a person in derogation of his vested rights may be made only in accordance with the basic rules of justice and fairplay. The deciding authority, it is true, is not in the positibn of a Judge called upon lo decide an action between contesting parties, and strict compliance with the forms of judidial procedure may not be insisted upon. He is however under a duty to give the person against whom an enquiry is held an opportunity to set up his version or defence and an opptirtunity to con'Cct Qr to controvert any evidence in the possession of the authority which is sought to be relied upon to his prejudice.'' We find that the High 'Court of Maharashtra has also taken in V. R. Gokhale v. State of Maharashtra(') the same view which we are inclined to take of the nature of function under R. 152 of the Bombay Civil Service Rules, 1959, a rule in terms idcmtical to those of F.R. 54 before us. In our. view, F.R. 54 contemplates a duty to act in accordance with the basic concept of justice and fairplay. The authcrity therefore had to afford a reasonable opportunity to the appellant lo show cause why els. 3 and 5 should not be applied and that having not been done the order must be held to be invalid. -~--------------------- (1) (1967] 2 S.C.R. 625. (2) I.L.R. (1963] Born. 537. A B 0 D r G B GOPALAKRISBNA V. MADHYA PRADESH (Sf1e/at, J.) 361 A The appeal is allo\VN and the High Court's order is set B aside. The competent authority is directed to consider the question de novo after giving to the appellant a reasonable opportu· nity to show cause against the action proposed against him. The respondent will pay to the appellant costs of this appeal as also the costs of the petition in the High Court. G.C. Appeal allowed.