FELIX FERNANDEZ Vs. INTEGRAL COACH FACTORY MADRAS [BY DEPUTY CHIEF MECHANICAL ENGINEER STORES ]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two writ appeals and the writ petition are posted together as a common question of law is involved. In Writ Petition No. 159 of 1961 against which Writ Appeal No. 14 of 1964 is preferred, Veeraswami, J. held that in an enquiry under Art. 311 of the Constitution of India, if after setting out the charge a delinquent is asked to show cause why he should not be dismissed or otherwise punished for the indisciplinary conduct, the method of framing the charge is not in consonance with Art. 311 of the Constitution of India. According to the learned Judge, the fact that the proposed punishment is mentioned in the charge can only show that even before the charge was enquired into and a finding arrived at on the basis of the inquiry, the delinquent had been prejudged and therefore the order of dismissal is liable to quashed. In Writ Petition No. 402 of 1961 against which Writ Appeal No. 5 of 1964 is preferred, Srinivasan, J., found himself unable to follow the decision of Veeraswami, J., in Writ petition No. 159 of 1961. Srinivasan, J., was of the view that the mere mention of the possible punishment in case the delinquent was found guilty of the charge would not amount to prejudging the question of guilty. In Writ petition No. 749 of 1963 the view of Srinivasan, J., in Writ Petition No. 462 of 1961 was found to the notice of Veersawami, J. As Veeraswami, J., felt that the view he took in the Writ Petition No. 159 of 1961 was correct and was unable to accept the view of Srinivasan, J., he directed the matter to be placed before a Bench.

(2.) APART form the common question of law this arises in Writ Appeal Nos. 5 and 14 of 1964 and Writ Petition No. 749 of 1963, other question that were raised in the respective causes will be referred to separately. The common question of law arises in all the cases may first be considered. The procedure contemplated in an enquiry against a public servant under Art. 311 of the Constitution of India is(1) to inform the delinquent of the charge levelled against him, and the allegations on which the charges are based, (2) to provide an opportunity for the delinquent to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, to examine himself and to adduce defence evidence, and (3) to afford an opportunity to make representations as to why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted on him.

(3.) IT was not contented before the Supreme Court that, as the charges was followed by a memorandum calling upon the delinquent to show cause why he should not be dismissed, the issue was prejudged and the entire enquiry was vitiated.