ivil Appeal No 1064 of 1966
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 4 1965 of the Kerala High Court in Writ Appeal No 205 of 1964
B Sen and SP Nayar for appellant No 1
AS Nambiar and Lily Thomas for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover J
This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Kerala High Court in which the only point which arises for decision is whether Rule 1713 of the Conduct and Disciplinary Rules hereinafter called the Rules for railway servants was correctly applied and the dismissal of the respondent who at the material time was an Assistant Station Master was rightly set aside for non compliance with that Rule
The facts lie within a narrow compass
In July 1963 the respondent who was working as an Assistant Station Master at Chalakudy railway station was served with a statement containing charges relating to certain matters after an inspection report had been submitted to the authorities concerned
After the reply of the respondent had been received a departmental enquiry was held and the Enquiring Officer submitted a report finding all the four charges which had been preferred against the respondent proved
A show cause notice was then served in September 1963 giving the findings of the Enquiring Officer Assistant Commercial Superintendent  and it was stated that it had been tentatively decided by the Chief Commercial Superintendent that the respondent should be dismissed from service
This notice was served after the Chief Commercial Superintendent had recorded the following order Exh R 8  The employee in his reply dated 3 8 1963 to this charge sheet has not accepted the charges contained in the same
An enquiry therefore was arranged
It was held by the Assistant Commercial Superintendent Olavakkot from 22 8 63 to 29 8 1963
I have seen the enquiry proceedings
I find that the procedure has been followed correctly that the accused has been given every reasonable opportunity for his defence and I agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer 345 that all the charges mentioned in the charge sheet have been established
Since these are serious charges it is tentatively decided to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on Shri K Rajappa Menon Assistant Station MasterChalakudi
He should therefore be asked to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service accordingly
 He was given a week for showing cause why the proposed penalty should not be inflicted on him
After the explanation of the respondent had been received his dismissal was ordered by the Chief Commercial Superintendent
The respondent filed a petition under article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court and a number of points were raised before the learned Single Judge
The only point which prevailed with him Was that the Chief
Commercial Superintendent had not recorded an order as required by Rule 1713
He examined the other contention raised on behalf of the respondent before him that at the stage of the second show cause notice the Chief Commercial Superintendent had finally made up his mind which he could not or ought not to have done until the reply or the explanation of the respondent had been received and considered by him
In view of a bench decision of the Kerala High Court he did not rest his decision on the second point but decided in favour of the respondent on the first point holding that the Chief Commercial Superintendent had not given findings on each of the charges
In his opinion the rule contemplated that the evidence which had been adduced at the enquiry in relation to each charges should be examined and considered by the punishing authority and he should give his own assessment and finding relating to each
individual charge which was not done in the present case
The division Bench on appeal by the present appellant affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge
Now Rule 1713 provides that if the disciplinary authority is not the Enquiring Authority it shall consider the record of the enquiry and
record its findings on each charge
The argument which prevailed with the High COurt was that the order embodied in Exh 8 did not comply with the aforesaid rule because findings relating to each charge were not given after a proper discussion and analysis of the evidence produced at the departmental enquiry
In other words the Chief CommerCial Superintendent was bound
to pass a detailed order expressing his views about each charge and that a general agreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 1713
We are altogether unable to agree with the view expressed by the High Court
Rule 1713 does not lay down any particular sup
cI69 5 346 form or manner in which the disciplinary authority should record its findings on each charge
All that the Rule requires is that the record of the enquiry should be considered and the disciplinary authority should proceed to give its findings on each charge
This does not and cannot mean that it is obligatory on the disciplinary authority to discuss the evidence and the facts and circumstances established at the departmental enquiry in detail and write as if it were an order or a judgment of a judicial tribunal
The rule certainly requires the disciplinary authority to give consideration to the record of the proceedings which as expressly stated in Exh
R 8 was done by the Chief Commercial Superintendent
When he agreed with the findings of the Enquiry that all the charges mentioned in the charge sheet had been established it meant that he was affirming the findings on each charge and that would certainly fulfil the requirement of the Rule
The Rule after all has to be read not in a pedantic manner but in a practical and reasonable way and so read it is difficult escape from the conclusion that the Chief Commercial Superintendent had substantially complied with the requirements of the Rule
The interference by the High Court therefore on the ground that there had been non compliance with Rule 17 13 was not justified
Learned counsel for the respondent has sought to raise the second point which the High Court had declined to decide namely that the disciplinary authority was not entitled to have finally made up its mind before the explanation to the second show cause notice had been received by it and at a stage prior to the issuance of the notice
Such a contention is wholly untenable in view of the decisions of this Court
It has been made quite clear in Khem Chand vs The Union of India  Ors1 that the procedure article 311 2 of the Constitution of affording a reasonable opportunity includes the giving of two notices one at the enquiry stage and the other when the competent authority as a result of the enquiry tentatively determines to inflict a particular punishment
It is quite obvious that unless the disciplinary or the competent authority arrives at some tentative decision it will not be in a position to determine what particular punishment to inflict and a Second show cause notice cannot be issued without such a tentative determination
The appeal is consequently allowed and the judgment of the High Court is hereby set aside
The petition filed by the respondent under article 226 shall stand dismissed
No order as to costs
YP Appeal allowed


Summary:
After the reply of the respondent a railway employee in respect of certain charges preferred against him was received a departmental enquiry was held
The Enquiring Officer found all the charges proved
A show cause notice was then served stating that it had been tentatively decided by the Chief Commercial Superintendent that the respondent should be dismissed from service
This notice was served after the  Chief Commercial Superintendent had recorded an order stating that he had seen the enquiry proceedings that the procedure had been correctly followed and that he agreed with the findings of the Enquiring Officer
The respondent submitted his explanation thereafter his dismissal was ordered
The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court
The single Judge allowed the petition holding that the Chief Commercial Superintendent was bound to pass a detailed order expressing his views about each of the charges and that a general agreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer did not satisfy the requirements of r 1713 of the Conduct and Disciplinary Rules
This decision was affirmed by the Division Bench
In appeal this COurt HELD The appeal must be allowed
i Rule 1713 does not lay down any particular form or manner in which the disciplinary authority should record its findings on each charge
All that the Rule requires is that the record of the enquiry should be considered and disciplinary authority should proceed  to give its findings on each charges
This does not and cannot mean that it is obligatory on the disciplinary authority to discuss the evidence and the facts and circumstances established at the departmental enquiry in detail and write as if it were an order or a judgment of a judicial tribunal
The rule certainly requires the disciplinary authority to give consideration to the record of the proceedings which was done by the Chief Commercial Superintendent
When he agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer that all the charges mentioned in the charge sheet had been established it meant that he was affirming the findings on each charge and that would  certainly fulfil the requirement of the Rule
345 H 346 D ii There was no force in the respondent s contention that the disciplinary authority was not entitled to have finally made up its mind before the explanation to the second show cause notice had been received by it and at a stage prior to the issuance of the notice
The procedure which is to be followed under article 3112 of the Constitution of affording a reasonable opportunity includes the
giving of two notices One at the enquiry stage and the other when the competent authority as a result of the enquiry tentatively determines to inflict a particular punishment
344 It is quite obvious that unless the disciplinary or the competent authority arrives at some tentative decision it will not be in a position to determine what particular punishment to inflict and a second show cause notice cannot be issued without such a tentative determination
346 E Khem Chand vs Union of India  Ors   followed