TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -270
SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AGAINST PROPOSED PUNISHMENT
1056. The second show cause notice must state :
(i) whether the disciplinary authority agrees with the findings of the inquiry officer (State of Assam v. Bimal Kumar, AIR 1963 SC 1622]. If he does not agree with any of his findings, reasons for the disagreement (State of Madras v. A.R. Srinivasan, AIR 1966 SC 1827). Though no reasons need be mentioned in the case of agreement (ibid.); where serious objections are raised against inquiry report and jurisdiction of the inquiry officer itself is challenged, disciplinary authority should mention reasons for not accepting the objections (Chedalal Jha v. Union of India, (1974)1 SLR 19);
(ii) specific penalty which is tentatively proposed to be imposed and grounds on which it is proposed to be inflicted. If more punishments than one are proposed to be inflicted, mention of specific punishment for each charge [Sulhendra v. Union Territory, AIR 1962 Tripura 15); and
(iii) the reasonable period of time within which the employee must submit his representation
1057. The second show cause notice must not only be precise and clear but should also indicate the points on which the officer concerned is expected to give a reply. It must give the employee concerned a real opportunity to defend himself [B.D. Gupta v. State of Haryana, AIR 1972 SC 2472]. Where the notice simply stated, without giving reasons, that the reply of the employee to the statement of charges and allegations had been found to be unsatisfactory, the Supreme Court held the notice to be defective, observing - “As one reads the first paragraph of the notice, the questions that at once assail one's mind are many: In what way was the explanation of the appellant unsatisfactory? Which part of the appellant's explanation was so unsatisfactory? On what materials did the Government think that the appellant's explanation was unsatisfactory?” [B.D. Gupta v. State of Haryana, 1972 Lab. IC 1613, para 8]
Post a Comment