VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

558 DECISION - 261
After amendment of Art. 311(2) of Constitution from
3-1-1977, second opportunity to show-cause against
punishment not necessary.
Secretary, Central Board of Excise & Customs vs. K.S. Mahalingam,
1986(3) SLR SC 144
The respondent was an Examiner of Madras Customs
House. A charge-sheet was served on him alleging misconduct
involving lack of integrity and lack of devotion to duty and conduct
unbecoming of a Government Servant. The respondent denied the
charges. The Inquiry Officer held both the articles of charge
established. The disciplinary authority, the Collector of Customs,
Madras, by order dated 15-5-80 held both the charges proved and
dismissed the respondent. The respondent preferred an appeal to
the Chief Vigilance Officer, Central Board of Excise and Customs,
who by order dated 8-7-81 upheld the finding of the disciplinary
authority but altered the penalty of dismissal to one of compulsory
retirement.
The respondent filed a writ petition before the Madras High
Court. A single Judge of the High Court came to the conclusion that
there was no evidence of lack of devotion to duty or conduct
unbecoming of a Government servant and took the view that as no
opportunity was given to the respondent to show cause against the
punishment before it was imposed by the disciplinary authority and
as no copy of the Inquiry Officer’s report was supplied to him, the
order of dismissal was vitiated, and by his order dated 7-9-85 quashed
the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement of the respondent
in service.
The Secretary, Central Board of Excise and Customs
preferred an appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court. The
Division Bench by its judgment dated 13-9-85 agreed with the single
judge that the respondent was deprived of an opportunity to show
cause against the punishment imposed on him by the Disciplinary
Authority and in that view of the matter did not consider the findings