- (1.) This appeal by special leave is preferred against the Order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Mysore at Bangalore quashing the order of the Government dated March 13, 1957 dismissing the respondent from service.
(2.) In the year 1957 the respondent was holding the post of an Assistant to the Additional Development Commissioner, Planning, Bangalore. On June 25, 1957, the Government of Mysore appointed Shri G. V. K. Rao, I.A.S., Additional Development Commissioner, as the Enquiry Officer to conduct a departmental enquiry against him in respect of the false claims for allowances and fabrication of vouchers to support them. After giving the usual notice, the said Enquiry Officer framed four charges against him. After making the necessary enquiry in accordance with law, the said Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Government with the recommendation that the respondent might be reduced in rank. After considering the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Government issued to him a notice calling upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The relevant part of the said show cause notice reads as follows: "The Inquiring Authority has recommended that you may be reduced in rank. As the charges proved against you are of a very grave nature and are such as render you unfit to remain in Government Service, and the Government consider that a more severe punishment is called for in the interest of public service, it is proposed to dismiss you from service." The respondent made representations to the effect that the entire case had been foisted on him. After considering the representations of the respondent, the Government passed an order on January 6, 1959 dismissing him from service. As the argument turns upon the terms of this order, it will be convenient to read the material part thereof. "Government have carefully considered the report of the enquiry, the explanation of Shri Manche Gowda and the opinion furnished by the Mysore Public Service Commission. There is no reasonable ground to accept the version of Shri Manche Gowda that the entire case has been deliberately foisted on him. The evidence on record shows conclusively that the charges framed are fully proved." "As regards the quantum of punishment, Government have examined the previous record of the Officer and have given careful consideration to the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. Shri Manche Gowda was recruited directly as a Gazetted Officer. He had been punished twice-first, in Government Order No. Sd. 10-16/A. 17:53. 12 dated 1-4-1954, for making false claims of T. A. and tampering with the accounts and ledgers of Food Depot and again, in Government Order No. 40. MSC 57 dated 13th March 1957 for not having credited to Government certain sums of money which he had collected from the Office Staff. Yet he failed to learn a lesson; he had indulged in similar offences. It is clear that he is incorrigible and no improvement can be expected in his conduct. In the circumstances a reduction in pay and continuance of the Officer in Government Service, as recommended by the Public Service Commission, is no remedy. Having regard to the status of the Office and the nature of the charges proved against him, Government have come to the conclusion that he is unfit to continue in Government service and direct that he may be dismissed from service forthwith."
(3.) It will be seen from the said Order that the reason for giving enhanced punishment above that recommended by the Inquiry Officer as well as by the Service Commission was that earlier he had committed similar offences and was punished-once on April 1, 1954 and again on March 13, 1957. In the second notice those facts were not given as reasons for the proposed punishment of dismissal from service. The respondent filed a petition in the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for quashing the said order and the High Court quashed the order of dismissal on the ground that the said two circumstances on which the Government relied for the proposed infliction of punishment of dismissal were not put to the petitioner for being explained by him, in the show cause notice, which was issued to the petitioner on February 4, 1958. The impugned order was accordingly set aside leaving it open to the State Government to dispose of the matter afresh if it desisted to do so after compliance with the requirements of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. Hence the appeal.;