VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

216 DECISION -19
The respondent was an employee of the Education
Department in the State of Uttar Pradesh and was working as a
member of the Book Selection Committee. He was given a charge
as he was found to have allowed his private interests to come into
conflict with his public duties and an enquiry was held by the Director
of Education, who recommended that the respondent be demoted
and compulsorily retired. A show cause notice was given by the
Government on 7-11-52 and he gave his explanation on 25-11-52.
On 2-2-53, he filed a writ in the High Court challenging the order of
suspension, the show cause notice and the legality of the proceedings.
The Government gave him a fresh show cause notice furnishing a
copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer (which was not supplied earlier)
on 16-6-53 and he replied on 3-7-53. The Government consulted the
Public Service Commission but failed to send the explanation of the
respondent dated 3-7-53. The Government after considering the
opinion of the Commission passed order on 12-9-53 reducing him in
rank with effect from 2-8-52 and compulsorily retiring him.
The respondent filed a second writ on 23-9-53. The High
Court held that the impugned orders were invalid as the petitioner’s
explanation of 3-7-53 was not placed before the Commission and
hence there was no full compliance with Art. 320(3)(c) of Constitution.
The order about reduction in rank was declared invalid. No order
was passed about retirement as in the High Court’s view it took place
in the normal course. Both the parties appealed from the High Court
judgment.
In the Supreme Court, Government wanted to give additional
evidence to the effect that the respondent’s explanation of 3-7-53
was also placed before the Commission. While rejecting the request,
the Supreme Court observed that it was not suggested that all the
matter which was proposed to be placed before the Court was not
available to the State Government during the time that the High Court
considered the writ petitions on two occasions. It is well settled that
additional evidence should not be permitted at the appellate stage in
order to enable one of the parties to remove certain lacunae in
presenting the case at the proper stage. Ofcourse the position is