VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

330 DECISION - 98
entitled to an opportunity to show cause against the action
proposed.
M. Gopalakrishna Naidu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
AIR 1968 SC 240
The appellant was serving as an Overseer. He was
suspended from service and prosecuted under section 161 I.P.C.
The trial resulted in his conviction, but it was set aside in appeal for
want of proper sanction. He was again prosecuted but this time
investigation was held to be not carried out by competent authority.
A departmental inquiry was held and the Inquiry Officer found the
appellant not guilty but the Government disagreed with the finding
and issued a show cause notice why he should not be dismissed.
Later, the Government held that the charges were not proved beyond
reasonable doubt and issued an order directing the appellant to be
reinstated, but simultaneously retired him denying him pay and
allowances under rule 54(3) and (4) of F.Rs. holding that the
suspension and the departmental inquiry “were not wholly unjustified”.
The appellant challenged this order claiming full pay and allowances
under clause (2) of rule 54 of F.Rs.
The Supreme Court held that the order denying him pay and
allowances was not a consequential order after reinstatement, nor
was such an order a continuation of the departmental proceedings
taken against the employee. The very nature of the function implies
the duty to act judicially. In such a case, if an opportunity to show
cause against the action proposed is not afforded, as admittedly it
was not done in the present case, the order is liable to be struck
down as invalid on the ground that it is one in breach of the principles
of natural justice attracting Art. 311 of Constitution. It was further
held that F.R. 54 contemplates a duty to act in accordance with the
basic concept of justice and fair play.