The State counsel has justifiably made reference to law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others versus Bishamber Das Dogra JT 2009 (9) SC 175. The issue under consideration in this case was also whether while imposing the punishment, it is permissible to take into consideration, the past conduct of an employee, if it is not so mentioned in the show cause notice. This very question was earlier considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Assam Vs. Bimal Kumar, AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1612. It was observed that while issuing show cause notice, the Disciplinary Authority naturally has to come a tentative or provisional conclusion about the guilt of the charged employee as well as the punishment which would meet the requirement of justice in the case. Having reached this conclusion, the Disciplinary Authority is required to issue such a show cause notice. In State of Mysore Vs. Manche Gowda, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 506, it was viewed that the Disciplinary Authority should inform the delinquent employee that it was likely to take into consideration the past conduct while imposing the punishment, unless the proved charges are so grave that these may independently warrant the proposed punishment. The observations made in the case of India Marine Service (P) Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen , 1963 (3) SCR 575, would be relevant to note where it was held that where past records was taken into consideration, it would not follow therefrom that the same was the effective reason for dismissing him. While passing the termination order, if it is added as an additional reason to arrive at the decision in this regard, it would not mean that past record was taken into consideration. In Director
