A conjoint reading of the various provisions of the PEEDA suggests that a show cause notice is not an accusation made or information given.........

A conjoint reading of the various provisions of the PEEDA suggests that a show cause notice is not an accusation made or information given in abstract but an accusation made against an employee in respect of an act committed or omitted, cognizable thereunder. As such, the law intends that a show cause notice must conform to at least seven essential elements, and these include:

(a) it should be in writing and should be worded appropriately

(b) it should clearly state the nature of the charge(s), date, and place of the commission or omission of acts, along with apportionment of responsibility;

(d) it should also indicate the proposed penalty in case the charge is proved;

(e) it should specify the time and date within which the employee should submit his explanation in writing. It is also preferable to add in the show cause notice that if no written explanation is received from the accused within the prescribed date, the enquiry will be conducted ex-parte;

(f) it should be issued under the signature of the competent authority and

(g) it should contain the time, date and place of the inquiry and the name of the inquiry officer.

It must be mentioned here that strict compliance of the above conditions is vital so that the principle of natural justice is not violated. It is thus emphasised that the charges made in the show cause notice should not be vague. All the acts of commission or omission constituting the charge, and also forming the ground for proceeding against the employee, should be clearly specified because otherwise, it will be difficult for an employee, even by projecting his imagination, to discover all the facts and circumstances that may be in the contemplation of the competent authority to be established against him, and thus, it will not only frustrate the requirement of giving him a reasonable opportunity to put up a defence but also amount to a violation of his fundamental right to a fair trial.