{"id":10022,"date":"1963-08-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1963-08-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-k-manche-gowda-on-22-august-1963"},"modified":"2016-09-14T23:09:31","modified_gmt":"2016-09-14T17:39:31","slug":"state-of-mysore-vs-k-manche-gowda-on-22-august-1963","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-k-manche-gowda-on-22-august-1963","title":{"rendered":"State Of Mysore vs K. Manche Gowda on 22 August, 1963"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Mysore vs K. Manche Gowda on 22 August, 1963<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1964 AIR 506, \t\t 1964 SCR (4) 540<\/div>\n
Author: K Subbarao<\/div>\n
Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B., Subbarao, K., Wanchoo, K.N., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Mudholkar, J.R.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF MYSORE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nK. MANCHE GOWDA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n22\/08\/1963\n\nBENCH:\nSUBBARAO, K.\nBENCH:\nSUBBARAO, K.\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\n\nCITATION:\n 1964 AIR  506\t\t  1964 SCR  (4) 540\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1969 SC1020\t (8,10)\n\n\nACT:\nCivil  Servant--Reasonable  opportunity--Dismissal based  on\nprevious punishments--Whether an opportunity  to explain  be\ngiven  in second show cause notice--\"Presumptive  knowledge\"\nand \"reasonable\t opportunity\"--Constitution of\tIndia,\tArt.\n311 (2)--Government of India Act, 1935, s. 240(3).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t respondent was holding the post of an Assistant  to\nthe   Additional    Development\t  Commissioner,\t   Planning,\nBangalore.  A departmental enquiry was held against him\t and\nthe Enquiry Officer  recommended  that\tthe  respondent\t  be\nreduced\t  in  rank. After considering the report of  Enquiry\nOfficer,  the  Government  issued  a  notice  calling\tupon\nrespondent to show cause why he should not be dismissed from\nservice.   The reply of the respondent was that\t the  entire\ncase  had  been\t foisted  on  him.   After  considering\t his\nrepresentation,\t the Government passed an  order  dismissing\nhim  from service.  The reason given for his  dismissal\t was\nthat  the respondent had on two earlier occasions  committed\ncertain\t offences  and he had been punished  for  the  same.\nHowever,  those\t facts\twere not given as  reasons  for\t the\nproposed punishment. of dismissal from service.\n541\n    The respondent filed a petition in the High Court  under\nArt.  226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of\t his\ndismissal. The High Court quashed the order of dismissal  on\nthe   ground  that  the\t two  circumstances  on\t which\t the\nGovernment relied for the proposed infliction of  punishment\nof  dismissal  were  not put to\t the  respondent  for  being\nexplained  by him in the show cause notice which was  issued\nto him.\t The appellant came to this Court by special leave.\n    The\t  contentions  of  the\tappellant  were\t  that\t the\nGovernment  was\t entitled  to take  into  consideration\t the\nprevious record of Government servant in awarding punishment\nto him and it was not incumbent on it to bring to the notice\nof  the\t Government  servant the said  fact  in\t the  second\nnotice.\t  Moreover, as the Government servant in  this\tcase\nhad  knowledge of his two.earlier punishments he was not  in\nany  way  prejudiced by their non-disclosure in\t the  second\nnotice.\t Dismissing the appeal,\n    Held, that it was incumbent upon the Government to\tgive\nthe  Government\t servant  at  the  second  stage  reasonable\nopportunity  to show cause against the\tproposed  punishment\nand  if\t the  proposed\tpunishment was\talso  based  on\t his\nprevious punishments or his previous bad record, that should\nbe  included in the second notice so that he may be able  to\ngive   an   explanation.   The\tdoctrine   of\t\"presumptive\nknowledge\" or that of \"purposeless enquiry\" is subversive of\nthe principle of \"reasonable opportunity\".\nSecretary  of State for India, v. I. M. Lal,  [1945]  F.C.R.\n103,  Khern  Chand v. Union of India,  [1958]  S.C.R.  1080,\nGopalrao v. State, I.L.R. [1954] Nag. 90, Shankar Shukla  v.\nSenior\tSuperintendent\tof Post Offices,  Lucknow  Division,\nA.I.R.\t1959  All.  624 and State of Assam  v.\tBimal  Kumar\nPandit,<\/a> [1964] 2 S.C.R. referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.  387  of
\n1963.\n<\/p>\n
    Appeal  by\tspecial leave from the\tjudgment  and  order
\ndated February 14, 1962, of the Mysore\tHigh Court  in\tWrit
\nPetition No. 916 of 1959.\n<\/p>\n
    C.K.   Daphtary,   Attorney-General\t  for\tIndia,\t  R.
\nGopalalkrishnan\t and B.R.G.K. Achar for P.D. Menon, for\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
Naunit Lal, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
August 22, 1963. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n      SUBBA   RAO  J.–This  appeal  by\t special  leave\t  is
\npreferred against the Order of a Division Bench of the\tHigh
\nCourt of Mysore at Bangalore quashing the order of the
\n542<\/span>
\nGovernment  dated March 13, 1957 dismissing  the  respondent
\nfrom service.\n<\/p>\n
    In the year 1957 the respondent was holding the post  of
\nan  Assistant  to the Additional  Development  Commissioner,
\nPlanning,  Bangalore.  On June 25, 1957, the  Government  of
\nMysore\t appointed  Shri  G.V.K.  Rao,\tI.A.S.,\t  Additional
\nDevelopment  Commissioner, as the Enquiry Officer to conduct
\na departmental enquiry against him in respect of false claim
\nfor  allowances and  fabrication vouchers to  support  them.
\nAfter  giving  the usual notice, the  said  Enquiry  Officer
\nframed four charges against him. After making the  necessary
\nenquiry\t in  accordance with law the  said  Enquiry  Officer
\nsubmitted   his\t  report   to  the   Government\t  with\t the
\nrecommendation that the respondent might be reduced in rank.
\nAfter  considering  the report of the Enquiry  Officer,\t the
\nGovernment  issued to him a notice calling upon him to\tshow
\ncause  why  he\tshould not be dismissed\t from  service.\t The
\nrelevant  part\tof  the\t said show  cause  notice  reads  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  Inquiry Authority has  recommended\tthat
\n\t      you  may be reduced in rank.  As\tthe  charges
\n\t      proved against you are of a very grave  nature
\n\t      and are such as render you unfit to remain  in
\n\t      Government   Service,   and   the\t  Government
\n\t      consider\tthat  a more  severe  punishment  is
\n\t      called for in the interest of public  service,
\n\t      it is proposed to dismiss you from service.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  respondent made representation to the effect  that\t the
\nentire case had been foisted on him.  After considering\t the
\nrepresentations of the respondent, the Government passed  an
\norder  on January 6, 1959 dismissing him from  service.\t  As
\nthe argument turns upon the terms of this order, it will  be
\nconvenient to read the material part thereof:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Government  have\t carefully  considered\t the
\n\t      report  the enquiry, the explanation  of\tShri
\n\t      Manche Gowda and the opinion furnished by\t the
\n\t      Mysore Public Service Commission.\t There is no
\n\t      reasonable  ground  to accept the\t version  of
\n\t      Shri  Manche  Gowda that the entire  case\t has
\n\t      been deliberately foisted on him. The evidence
\n\t      on record shows conclusively that the  charges
\n\t      framed are fully proved.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “As   regards  the  quantum   of\t punishment,
\n\t      Government
\n\t      543<\/span>
\n\t      have  examined  the  previous  record  of\t the
\n\t      Officer  and have given careful  consideration
\n\t      to  the  recommendation of the Public  Service
\n\t      Commission.   Shri Manche Gowda was  recruited
\n\t      directly\tas a Gazetted Officer.\tHe had\tbeen
\n\t      punished\ttwice–first,  in  Government  Order
\n\t      No.  SD 19-16\/A:17.  53-12,  dated  1–4-1954,
\n\t      for making false claims of T.A. and  tampering
\n\t      with  the accounts and ledgers of\t Food  Depot
\n\t      and again, in Government Order No. 40 MSC\t 57,
\n\t      dated 13th March 1957 for not having  credited
\n\t      to  Government certain sums of money which  he
\n\t      had  collected from the Office Staff.  Yet  he
\n\t      failed  to learn a lesson; he had indulged  in
\n\t      similar  offences.   It is clear\tthat  he  is
\n\t      incorrigible   and  no  improvement   can\t  be
\n\t      expected in his conduct.\tIn the circumstances
\n\t      a\t reduction  in pay and\tcontinuance  of\t the
\n\t      Officer  in Government Service, as recommended
\n\t      by  the  Public  Service\tCommission,  is\t  no
\n\t      remedy.\tHaving regard to the status  of\t the
\n\t      Officer  and the nature of the charges  proved
\n\t      against  him,   Government have  come  to\t the
\n\t      conclusion  that\the is unfit to\tcontinue  in
\n\t      Government  service and direct that he may  be
\n\t      dismissed from service forthwith.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  will  be seen from the said Order that  the\t reason\t for
\ngiving\tenhanced  punishment above that recommended  by\t the
\nInquiry\t Officer  as well as by the Service  Commission\t was
\nthat  earlier  he  had committed similar  offences  and\t was
\npunished–once on April 1, 1954 and again on March 13, 1957.
\nIn  the second notice those facts were not given as  reasons
\nfor the proposed punishment of dismissal from service.\t The
\nrespondent  filed a petition  in the High Court\t under\tArt.
\n226 of the Constitution\t for quashing the said order and the
\nHigh Court quashed the order of dismissal on the ground that
\nthe  said  two circumstances on which the Government  relied
\nfor  the proposed infliction of punishment of dismissal were
\nnot  put  to the petitioner for being explained by  him,  in
\nthe show cause notice, which was issued to the petitioner on
\nFebruary  4, 1958.  The impugned order was  accordingly\t set
\naside leaving it open to the State Government to dispose  of
\nthe  matter afresh if it desired to do so  after  compliance
\nwith the requirements of Art. 311(2) of the
\n544<\/span>
\nConstitution. Hence the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    Learned Attorney General contends that the Government is
\nentitled to take into consideration the previous record of a
\nGovernment  servant in awarding punishment to him and it  is
\nnot incumbent on it to bring to the notice of the Government
\nservant the said  fact in the second notice.  Alternatively,
\nhe  argues  that  whether a Government\tservant\t has  had  a
\nreasonable  opportunity\t of  being heard  or  not,  being  a
\nquestion  of fact in each case, and in the instant  case  as
\nthe  Officer  concerned\t had knowledge of  his\ttwo  earlier
\npunishments   which  formed  the  basis\t of   the   enhanced
\npunishment,  he was not in any way prejudiced by their\tnon-
\ndisclosure  to him in the second notice and, therefore,\t the
\nprinciples of natural justice were not violated.
\n    Mr. Naunit Lal, learned counsel for the respondent, says
\nthat a Government servant cannot be punished for his acts or
\nomissions  unless the said acts or omissions arc subject  of
\nspecific  charges and are enquired into in  accordance\twith
\nlaw and that, in any view, even if the Government could take
\ninto  consideration a Government  servant’s previous  record
\nin  awarding  punishment, the facts that form the  basis  of
\nthat  punishment should at least be disclosed in the  second
\nnotice giving thereby an opportunity to the said  Government
\nservant to explain his earlier conduct.\n<\/p>\n
The  material part of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution  which
\n’embodies   the\t constitutional\t protection  given   to\t   a
\nGovernment servant reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
“No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed\t\tor
\nremoved\t or  reduced  in  rank until he\t has  been  given  a
\nreasonable  opportunity of showing cause against the  action
\nproposed to be taken in regard to him.”\n<\/p>\n
Section\t 240(3)\t of  the Government of India  Act  was\tpari
\nmaterig\t with  the  said  clause  of  the  Article  of\t the
\nConstitution.  That  section fell to be\t considered  by\t the
\nFederal\t Court\tin  Secretary of State for India  v.  I.  M.
\nLall(1).  In  considering  that\t sub-section,  Spens   C.J-,
\nspeaking  for the majority of the Court, made the  following
\nremarks relevant to the present enquiry:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It  does\t however seem to us  that  the\tsub-
\n\t      section
\n\t      (1) [1945] F.C.R. 103, 139.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    545<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      requires\tthat  as and when  an  authority  is
\n\t      definitely  proposing to dismiss or to  reduce
\n\t      in  rank a  member of  the  civil\t service  he
\n\t      shall  be\t so told and he shall  be  given  an
\n\t      opportunity  of putting his case\tagainst\t the
\n\t      proposed\taction and as that  opportunity\t has
\n\t      to  be a reasonable opportunity, it seems\t  to
\n\t      us   that\t the  section  requires\t  not\tonly
\n\t      notification   of the action proposed  but  of
\n\t      the   grounds  on\t which\tthe   authority\t  is
\n\t      proposing\t that the action should\t  be  taken,
\n\t      and  that the person concerned must  then\t  be
\n\t      given    reasonable    time   to\t make\t his
\n\t      representations  against the  proposed  action
\n\t      and the grounds on which\tit is proposed to be
\n\t      taken  …………….. In our judgment\teach
\n\t      case  will have to turn on its own facts,\t but
\n\t      the  real point of the sub-section is  in\t our
\n\t      judgment\t that  the  person  who\t is  to\t  be
\n\t      dismissed or reduced must know that punishment
\n\t      is proposed as the punishment for certain acts
\n\t      or omissions on his part and must be told\t the
\n\t      grounds  on which it is proposed to take\tsuch
\n\t      action   and  must  be  given   a\t  reasonable
\n\t      opportunity   of\t showing  cause\t  why\tsuch
\n\t      punishment should not be imposed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This judgment was taken in appeal to the Privy Council,\t and
\nthe Judicial Committee, after quoting in extenso the passage
\njust  now extracted by us from the  Federal Court  judgment,
\nexpressed  its\tagreement  with\t  the\tview  taken  by\t the
\nmajority of the Federal Court. This  Court Khem Chand v. The
\nUnion  of  India<\/a>(1) also emphasized upon the  importance  of
\ngiving\ta reasonable opportunity to a Government servant  to
\nshow  that he does not merit the punishment proposed  to  be
\nmeted  out  to\thim.  Das  C.J.,  speaking  for\t the  Court,
\nobserved:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “In  addition to showing that he has not\tbeen
\n\t      guilty  of any misconduct so as to  merit\t any
\n\t      punishment,  it is reasonable that  he  should
\n\t      also  have an opportunity to contend that\t the
\n\t      charges proved against  him do not necessarily
\n\t      require the particular punishment proposed  to
\n\t      be  meted\t out  to  him.\t He  may  say,\t for
\n\t      instance, that although he has been guilty  of
\n\t      some misconduct it is not of such a  character
\n\t      as   to  merit  the  extreme  punishment\t  of
\n\t      dismissal or even of re-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (1) [1958] S.C.R. 1080, 1096.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      546<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      moval or reduction in rank and that any of the
\n\t      lesser  punishments ought to be sufficient  in
\n\t      his case.” The relevant aspect of the case has
\n\t      been  neatly  brought out by the\tNagpur\tHigh
\n\t      Court in Gopalrao v. State(1). There, as here,
\n\t      the  previous record of a\t Government  servant
\n\t      was  taken  into\tconsideration  in   awarding
\n\t      punishment  without bringing the said fact  to
\n\t      his  notice  and\t giving\t him  a\t  reasonable
\n\t      opportunity of explaining\t the   same.  Sinha,
\n\t      C.J. speaking for the Court, observed:
\n\t      “Normally,  the  question\t of  punishment\t  is
\n\t      linked up with the gravity of the charge,\t and
\n\t      the penalty that is inflicted is proportionate
\n\t      to the guilt.  Where the charge is trivial and
\n\t      prima  facie merits only a minor\tpenalty,,  a
\n\t      civil  servant  may not even  care  to  defend
\n\t      himself\tin   the  belief  that\t only\tsuch
\n\t      punishment  as would be commensurate with\t his
\n\t      guilt will be visited on him.  in such a case,
\n\t      even  if\tin  the show  cause  notice  a\tmore
\n\t      serious punishment is indicated than what\t the
\n\t      finding  of guilt warrants, he cannot be\tleft
\n\t      to  guessing for himself what  other  possible
\n\t      reasons have impelled the proposed action.  It
\n\t      is   not,\t therefore,  sufficient\t that  other
\n\t      considerations on which a higher punishment is
\n\t      proposed\tare  present  in the  mind   of\t the
\n\t      competent\t authority  or are supported by\t the
\n\t      record  of  service  of  the  civil    servant
\n\t      concerned.  In a case where these factors\t did
\n\t      not  form part of any specific charge and\t did
\n\t      not  otherwise  figure  in  the\tdepartmental
\n\t      enquiry,\tit is necessary that they should  be
\n\t      intimated\t to  the civil servant in  order  to
\n\t      enable  him to put up proper  defence  against
\n\t      the proposed action.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Randhir Singh J. of the Allahabad High  Court,
\n\t      in    Girja   Shankar   Shukla\tv.    Senior
\n\t      Superintendent   of   Post  Offices,   Lucknow
\n\t      Division,\t Lucknow(2), distinguished the\tcase
\n\t      thus:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “In   the\t  present   case,   however,   those
\n\t      punishments  were\t taken\tinto   consideration
\n\t      which are not only within the knowledge of the
\n\t      applicant\t  but\twhich\the   had    suffered
\n\t      earlier\t ……………………………..
\n\t      This   is\t  evidently  not  opposed   to\t any
\n\t      principles of
\n\t\t (1) I.L.R. [1954] Nag. 90, 94.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (2) A.I.R. 1959 All. 624, 625.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    547<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t  natural justice.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Multiplication\tof  citation  is  not\tnecessary,  as\t the
\naforesaid decisions bring out the conflicting views.
\n    Under Art. 311(2) of the Constitution, as interpreted by
\nthis  Court,  a Government servant must\t have  a  reasonable
\nopportunity  not only to prove that he is not guilty of\t the
\ncharges levelled against him, but also to establish that the
\npunishment  proposed to be imposed is either not called\t for
\nor  excessive.\tThe said opportunity is to be  a  reasonable
\nopportunity  and,  therefore,  it  is  necessary  that\t the
\nGovernment servant must be told of the grounds\ton which  it
\nis  proposed to take such action: see the decision  of\tthis
\nCourt  in the State of Assam v. Bimal Kumar  Pandit<\/a>(1).\t  If
\nthe  grounds are not given in the notice, it would  be\twell
\nnigh  impossible for him to predicate what is  operating  on
\nthe   mind  of\tthe  authority\tconcerned  in  proposing   a
\nparticular  punishment:\t he would not be in  a\tposition  to
\nexplain\t why  he does not deserve any punishment at  all  or
\nthat the punishment proposed is excessive.  If the  proposed
\npunishment  was mainly based upon the previous record  of  a
\nGovernment  servant   and  that was  not  disclosed  in\t the
\nnotice, it would mean that the main reason for the  proposed
\npunishment was withheld from the knowledge of the Government
\nservant.  It  would  be\t no answer  to\tsuggest\t that  every
\nGovernment servant must have had knowledge of the fact\tthat
\nhis   past   record   would  necessarily   be\ttaken\tinto
\nconsideration by the Government in inflicting punishment  on
\nhim; nor would it be an adequate answer to say that he\tknew
\nas  a  matter  of fact that  the  earlier  punishments\twere
\nimposed\t  on   him  or\tthat  he  knew of his  past  record.
\nThis  contention misses the real point, namely,\t  that\twhat
\nthe Government servant is entitled to is not the   knowledge
\nof certain facts but the fact that those facts will be taken
\ninto   consideration   by  the\tGovernment   in\t  inflicting
\npunishment on him.  It is not possible for him to know\twhat
\nperiod\tof his past record or what acts or omissions of\t his
\nin  a  particular  period  would  be  considered.  If\tthat
\nfact  .was brought to his notice, he might explain  that  he
\nhad  no knowledge of the remarks of  his superior  officers,
\nthat he had adequate explanation to offer
\n(1) [1964] 2 S.C.R. 1.\n<\/p>\n
548<\/span><\/p>\n
for  the alleged remarks or that his conduct  subsequent  to
\nthe  remarks had been exemplary or at any rate\tapproved  by
\nthe superior officers.\tEven if the authority concerned took
\ninto  consideration  only  the\tfacts  for   which  he\t was
\npunished, it would be open to him to put forward before\t the
\nsaid  authority many mitigating circumstances or some  other
\nexplanation why those punishments were given to him or\tthat
\nsubsequent   to\t the  punishments  he  had  served  to\t the
\nsatisfaction  of the authorities concerned till the time  of
\nthe  present enquiry. He may have many\tother  explanations.
\nThe   point  is\t not  whether  his  explanation\t  would\t  be
\nacceptable, but whether he has been given an Opportunity  to
\ngive  his  explanation.\t We cannot accept  the\tdoctrine  of
\n“presumptive knowledge” or that of “purposeless enquiry”, as
\ntheir  acceptance  will be subversive of  the  principle  of
\n“reasonable   opportunity”.  We, therefore, hold that it  is
\nincumbent upon the  authority to give the Government servant
\nat  the\t second stage reasonable opportunity to\t show  cause
\nagainst\t  the  proposed\t punishment  and  if  the   proposed
\npunishment is also based on his previous punishments or\t his
\nprevious  bad record, this should be included in the  second
\nnotice so that he may be able to give an explanation.
\n    Before  we\tclose, it would be necessary  to  make\t one
\npoint  clear.  It  is suggested that the past  record  of  a
\nGovernment servant, if it is intended to be relied upon\t for
\nimposing  a punishment, should be made a specific charge  in
\nthe  first stage of the enquiry itself and, if it is not  so
\ndone,  it cannot be relied upon after the enquiry is  closed
\nand  the report is submitted to the authority\tentitled  to
\nimpose\tthe  punishment.  An enquiry against   a  Government
\nservant is one continuous process, though for convenience it
\nis done in two stages.\tThe report submitted by the  Enquiry
\nOfficer\t is  only  recommendatory in nature  and  the  final
\nauthority which scrutinizes it and  imposes  punishment\t  is
\nthe   authority\t empowered to impose the  same.\t  Whether  a
\nparticular  person  has\t a  reasonable\topportunity  or\t not
\ndepends,  to  some extent, upon the nature  of\tthe  subject
\nmatter of the enquiry. But it is not necessary in this\tcase
\nto  decide  whether  such previous record can  be  made\t the
\nsubject matter of charge at the first stage of the  enquiry.
\nBut, nothing in law
\n 549<\/span>
\nprevents the punishing authority from taking that  fact into
\nconsideration  during the second stage of the  enquiry,\t for
\nessentially  it,  relates more to the domain  of  punishment
\nrather than to that of guilt.  But what is essential is that
\nthe   Government  servant  shall  be  given   a\t  reasonable
\nopportunity to know that fact and meet the same.
\n    In\tthe present case the second show cause\tnotice\tdoes
\nnot  mention  that  the\t Government  intended  to  take\t his
\nprevious  punishments  into consideration  in  proposing  to
\ndismiss him from service.  On the contrary, the said  notice
\nput  him  on the wrong scent, for it told him  that  it\t was
\nproposed  to dismiss him from service as the charges  proved
\nagainst\t him were grave.  But, a comparison of paragraphs  3
\nand  4\tof  the order of dismissal shows that  but  for\t the
\nprevious  record of the Government  servant, the  Government
\nmight  not have imposed the penalty of dismissal on him\t and
\nmight  have  accepted  the recommendations  of\tthe  Enquiry
\nOfficer\t and  the Public Service  Commission.\tThis  order,
\ntherefore, indicates that the show cause notice did not give
\nthe  only reason which influenced the Government to  dismiss
\nthe   respondent   from\t service.    This   notice   clearly
\ncontravened the provisions of Art. 311(2)of the Constitution
\nas interpreted by Courts.\n<\/p>\n
    This order will not preclude the Government from holding
\nthe  second  stage of the enquiry afresh and  in  accordance
\nwith law.\n<\/p>\n
In the result the appeal is dismissed with costs.
\nAppeal dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Mysore vs K. Manche Gowda on 22 August, 1963 Equivalent citations: 1964 AIR 506, 1964 SCR (4) 540 Author: K Subbarao Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B., Subbarao, K., Wanchoo, K.N., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Mudholkar, J.R. PETITIONER: STATE OF MYSORE Vs. RESPONDENT: K. MANCHE GOWDA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/08\/1963 BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10022","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Mysore vs K. Manche Gowda on 22 August, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-k-manche-gowda-on-22-august-1963\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Mysore vs K. Manche Gowda on 22 August, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-k-manche-gowda-on-22-august-1963\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1963-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-14T17:39:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mysore-vs-k-manche-gowda-on-22-august-1963#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mysore-vs-k-manche-gowda-on-22-august-1963\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Mysore vs K. Manche Gowda on 22 August, 1963\",\"datePublished\":\"1963-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-14T17:39:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mysore-vs-k-manche-gowda-on-22-august-1963\"},\"wordCount\":2930,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mysore-vs-k-manche-gowda-on-22-august-1963#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mysore-vs-k-manche-gowda-on-22-august-1963\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mysore-vs-k-manche-gowda-on-22-august-1963\",\"name\":\"State Of Mysore vs K. Manche Gowda on 22 August, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1963-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-14T17:39:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mysore-vs-k-manche-gowda-on-22-august-1963#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mysore-vs-k-manche-gowda-on-22-august-1963\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mysore-vs-k-manche-gowda-on-22-august-1963#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Mysore vs K. Manche Gowda on 22 August, 1963\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Mysore vs K. Manche Gowda on 22 August, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-k-manche-gowda-on-22-august-1963","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Mysore vs K. Manche Gowda on 22 August, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-k-manche-gowda-on-22-august-1963","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1963-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-14T17:39:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-k-manche-gowda-on-22-august-1963#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-k-manche-gowda-on-22-august-1963"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Mysore vs K. Manche Gowda on 22 August, 1963","datePublished":"1963-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-14T17:39:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-k-manche-gowda-on-22-august-1963"},"wordCount":2930,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-k-manche-gowda-on-22-august-1963#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-k-manche-gowda-on-22-august-1963","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-k-manche-gowda-on-22-august-1963","name":"State Of Mysore vs K. Manche Gowda on 22 August, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1963-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-14T17:39:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-k-manche-gowda-on-22-august-1963#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-k-manche-gowda-on-22-august-1963"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-k-manche-gowda-on-22-august-1963#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Mysore vs K. Manche Gowda on 22 August, 1963"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10022","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10022"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10022\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10022"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10022"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10022"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}