# STATE OF GUJARAT v. R. G. TEREDESAI & ANR

- **Citation:** [1970] 1 S.C.R. 251
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-04-10
- **Case number:** Civil App~al No. 961 of 1966
- **Bench:** J. C. Shah, V. RA~lASWAMI, A. N. Grover
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-gujarat-v-r-g-teredesai-anr-4747
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of Jrtdia Art; 311(2)-Failure to provide recommenda//ons
of the Enquiring Officers as to punishment-If vitiates enquiry-Natural
Justice, Principles-Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
-Rules, r. 55,
As there Was omission to supply to the first respondent a copy of thC
recommendations of the Enquiry officer in the matter
of
punishment
(although a copy of his report containing his findings on· various charges.
\VaS supplied) the first respondent filed a V.'rit petition in the High Court
challenging the order of the State Government removing him from its
service. ·The first respondent contended_. that_ the omission amounted to
failure to provide reasonable opportunity of making-representation a,:sinst
the penalty proposed within the meaning of Art. 311(2) of the Cowtitu-
. tion. The High Court held that proceedings we're vitiated from tho stage
of the show cause notice relating to punishment, and set aside the ocder
of removal, but liberty was given to the State Government to issue: fresh
shuv.· cause notiCe regarding . the proposed punishment.
Dismissing the
State's appeal, this Court;
·
HELD :-The requirement of a reasonahle oppo'rtunity could not be
satisfied unless the entire report of the Enquiry Officer including his vie\Vs
in the matter of punishment were disclosed to the delinquent servant.
[254 E]
The Enquiry Officer is under no obligation or duly to make any recommendations in the matter of punishment to be imposed on the servant
against v.·hom the departmental enquiry is. held, and his function merely
is to conduct the enquidy in accordance with la\v and to submit the record
along with his findings or conclusions on the delinquent servant.
But if
the Enquiry Officer has, also made recommendations in the matter of
punishm·.ent that is likely to affect the mind of the punishing authority
with regard to penolty or punishment to be imposed on. such officer, it
must be disclosed to the delinquent officer. Since such recommendations
form part of the record and constitut·~ appropdiate material for considera-
. tion of the Government it "\\'Ould be essential that that m·aterial should not
be withheld from him so that he could, while. showing cause against the
proposed punishment, make. a proper representation.
The entire object
of supplying a copy of the report of the Enquidy Officer is to enable the
delinquent officer to satisfy the punishing authority that he is innocent of
the charges framed against him and that even if the charges :are
held
to have been proved the punishment proposed to be inflicted is unduly
sevete. [253 H-254 DJ
Union of India v. H. C. Goel, (1964] 4 S.C.R. 718, referred to.

## Text

./
I
A
B
c
D
. E
F
G
H
251
STATE OF GUJARAT
v.
R. G. TEREDESAI & ANR.
April 10, 1969
(J. C. SHAH, V. RA~lASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.]
Constitution of Jrtdia Art; 311(2)-Failure to provide recommenda//ons
of the Enquiring Officers as to punishment-If vitiates enquiry-Natural
Justice, Principles-Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
-Rules, r. 55,
As there Was omission to supply to the first respondent a copy of thC
recommendations of the Enquiry officer in the matter
of
punishment
(although a copy of his report containing his findings on· various charges.
\VaS supplied) the first respondent filed a V.'rit petition in the High Court
challenging the order of the State Government removing him from its
service. ·The first respondent contended_. that_ the omission amounted to
failure to provide reasonable opportunity of making-representation a,:sinst
the penalty proposed within the meaning of Art. 311(2) of the Cowtitu-
. tion. The High Court held that proceedings we're vitiated from tho stage
of the show cause notice relating to punishment, and set aside the ocder
of removal, but liberty was given to the State Government to issue: fresh
shuv.· cause notiCe regarding . the proposed punishment.
Dismissing the
State's appeal, this Court;
·
HELD :-The requirement of a reasonahle oppo'rtunity could not be
satisfied unless the entire report of the Enquiry Officer including his vie\Vs
in the matter of punishment were disclosed to the delinquent servant.
[254 E]
The Enquiry Officer is under no obligation or duly to make any recommendations in the matter of punishment to be imposed on the servant
against v.·hom the departmental enquiry is. held, and his function merely
is to conduct the enquidy in accordance with la\v and to submit the record
along with his findings or conclusions on the delinquent servant.
But if
the Enquiry Officer has, also made recommendations in the matter of
punishm·.ent that is likely to affect the mind of the punishing authority
with regard to penolty or punishment to be imposed on. such officer, it
must be disclosed to the delinquent officer. Since such recommendations
form part of the record and constitut·~ appropdiate material for considera-
. tion of the Government it "\\'Ould be essential that that m·aterial should not
be withheld from him so that he could, while. showing cause against the
proposed punishment, make. a proper representation.
The entire object
of supplying a copy of the report of the Enquidy Officer is to enable the
delinquent officer to satisfy the punishing authority that he is innocent of
the charges framed against him and that even if the charges :are
held
to have been proved the punishment proposed to be inflicted is unduly
sevete. [253 H-254 DJ
Union of India v. H. C. Goel, (1964] 4 S.C.R. 718, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil App~al No. 961 of
1966.
.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and! order dated
March 18, 1965 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 580 of 1961.
I
SUPREME CO~RT REPORTS
I
[ 1970] I S.C.R.
R. H. Dhebar, S. K. Dholakia and S. P. Nayar, for the appel·
A
lant.
G. L. Sanghi and A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for mpandent No. 1.
M. S. K. Sastri, R. H. Dhebar and R. N. S.chthey, for respondent No. 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
t;ro"fer, J,
This is an appeal by special leave against a judg·
mC11t of the Gujarat High Coun. The sole point for determination is whether omission to supply to the .first mpondent a copy
of the recommendatiors of the &quiry Officer in the matter of
pWlishment, although a copy of his report containing his findings
on the various charges was supplied, amounWd to a failure to
pro'ride reasonable opportunity of making a representation against
the penalty proposed within the meaning of Art. 311 (2) of the
Comtitution.
The first respondent joined the Baroda State Service in 1937.
He was absorbed as a Sales Tax Officer, Class ill in the former
State of Bombay after merger. In December 1962 he was served
witb a charge-sheet containing allegations of attempt to obtain
illegal gratification from certain cloth dealers.
A departmental
enquiry was held and on March 15, 1964 he was dismissed from
senice. He challenged the order of dismissal by means of a
B
c
D
- ci"fil suit. In May 1958 the City Civil Court decreed the suit
holding that the order of dismissal was illegal. He was reinstated
E
with dfect from October 10, 1958. He was, however, suspended
with immediate effect as a fresh enquiry was proposed to be held
against him under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification,
COlltrol and Appeal) Rules. A fresh charge-sheet was served on
him containing the same allegations as on the previous occasion.
In December 1959 a notice was served on him by the Govern·
mant calling upon him to show cause why punishment of removal
should not be imposed on him. Along with the show cause notice
the report of the Enquiry Officer containing his findings was sent
to him. The &quiry Officer had also made certain recommendations regarding the punishment which in his opinion should
be infilcted on the first respondent. No copy of these recommendations, however, was furnished to him. In March 1960 it was
pl'Opoled that the first respondent be allocated to the State of
Gujarat in view of the. bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bombay. In September 1960 he was removed from service by an
order passed by the State Government. The lint respondent then
. filed a peiition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging
the order of removal.
One of the points which was raised before the High Court
was that the failure to send a copy of the report of the· Enquiry
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
GUJARAT v. TE!l.EDESA! (Grover, J.)
253
Officer containing his recommendatinns in the matter of punishment vitiated the proceedings.
The High Court expressed the
view that since the recommendations were a part of the appro~
priate material for the consideration of the Government in the
matter of imposition of punishment on the first respondent, he
was entitled to a copy of those recommendations at the time when
he was called upon to show cause. It was consequently held that
the proceedings were vitiated from the stage of the show cause
notice relating to punishment.
The order of removal was set
aside but it was made clear that the Government would be at
liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice regarding the proposed
punishment and to take appropriate prvceedings from that stage
onwards, if it chose to do so.
The State has filed the present
appeal.
Learned counsel for th~ State urged. that the Enquiry Officer
was not required to make any recoJ}lmendation about the punishment which was to be imposed on the first respondeni on the
charges against him which had been found to have been proved.
It was pointed out that the sole duty of the Enquiry Officer was
to give his conclusions or findings on the charges which he was
called upon to enquire into and the recommendations which he
made in the matter of punishment were wholly redundant and
irrelevlUlt. For that reason it was not at all necessary that the
first respondent should have been supplied a copy of the recommendations relating to punishment. . In this connection reference
has been made to the Bombay Civil Services Conduct, Discipline
and Appeal Rules wherein the procedure has been laid down
when an order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank has to
be passed on a member of· the service.
According to the Rule
the proceedings shall contain sufficient record of the evidence and
a statement of ~ findings and the grounds thereof. Tuer? are
similar provisions· in Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules.
In Union of India v. H. C. Goel('). It has been observed that
unless the statutory rules or the specific order under which an
officer is appointed to hold an inquiry so requires the Enquiry
Officer need not make any recommendations as to the punishment which may be imposed on the delinquent officer in case the
charges framed against him are held proved at the enquiry; if
however, the Enquiry Officer makes any recommendations the
said recomrne1.dations, like his findings on the merits, are intended merely to snpply appropriate material for the consideration of
the Government. Neither the findings, nor the recommendations
are binding on the Government. Now although it is correct that
the Enquiry Officer is under no obligation or duty to make any
(I) (1964] 4 S.C.R. 718.
254
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 19701 I S.CR.
re:ommendations in the matter of punishment to be imposed on
the servant against whom the departmental enquiry is held, and
his function me:ely is to .:onduct the enquiry in accordance with
law and to submit the record along with his findings or conclusions on the various charges which have been preferred against
the delinquent servant.
But if the Enquiry Officer proceeds to
recommend that a particular penalty or punishment should be
imposed in the light of his findings or conclusions the question
is whether the officer concerned should be informed about his
recommendations.
In other words since such recommendations
form part of the record and constitute appropriate material for
considrratton of the Government it would be essential that that
material shou:J not be withheld from him so that he could, while
showi..~g cause against the proposed punishment, make a proper
representation. The entire object of supplying a copv ol the
report of the Enquiry Officer is to enable the deli~quent officer
to satisfy the punishing authority tha: he is innocent of the charges
framed al!ainst him and that even if the charges are held to have
been proved the punishment proposed to be inflicted is unduly
severe. If the Er.quiry Officer has also made recommendations
in the matter of punishment that is likely to affect the mind of
the punishing authority even with regard to penalty or punishment to be imposed on such officer.
The requirement of a
reasonable opportunity, therefore, would not be satisfied unless
the entire report 0f the Enquiry Officer including his views in the
matter of punish:nent are disclosed to the delinquent servant.
We have no manner of doubt that the decision of the High
Court must be upheld in the above
view of the
matter.
The
appeal fails and it is dismissed with costs.
Y.P.
Appeal dismi.ued.
A
B
c
D
E