Jagat Pal Singh vs R.S.Chib and Others

It is not necessary to note the facts in detail. A departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner. He stands removed from service. He

challenged this order before the Appellate Authority. The appeal was dismissed. The appellate order is annexure ""J"" with the writ petition. This was

passed on 22nd Sept., 98. The order of dismissal is being challenged on the ground that the punishing authority before imposing the punishment did

not supply him with the copy of enquiry report. In the situation, it is urged that what was said by the Supreme Court of India in the case reported

as AIR 1991 SC 471, Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan would be attracted. With regard to the Appellate order, it is submitted that the

same is not in consonance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Chander vs. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 1173.

The learned counsel for the respondents submits that there was absolutely no necessity to furnish the petitioner with the copy of the enquiry

report. Reliance is being placed on Rule 12 of the Cantonment Fund Servant Rules, 1937 (amended). It is submitted that as there is no provision

of furnishing of copy of enquiry report, therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that he should be supplied with the same. It is further submitted that

the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Ramzan's case (supra) was with regard to the civil servant who was governed by Article

311 of the constitution. The corresponding provision in the State of Jammu and Kashmir is section 126. It is accordingly submitted that the

judgement given in Mohd. Ramzan's case would not be attracted to the facts of this case.

So far as the arguments as raised above are concerned, these are squarely answered by the Supreme Court in the case reported as Managing

Director, ECIL Hyderabad vs. S. Karunakar, AIR 1994 SC 1074. It has been explicitly observed that the law laid down in Mohd. Ramzan's case

would apply to employees in all establishments whether Government or nonGovernment, public or private. This will be the case whether there are

rules governing the disciplinary proceedings or not and whether they expressly prohibit the furnishing of the copy of report or are silent on the

subject.

Whatever the nature of punishment, further, whenever the rules require an inquiry to be held, for inflicting the punishment in question, the delinquent

employee should have the benefit of the report of the Inquiry Officer before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges levelled

against him.

The above observations made by the Supreme Court fully apply to the facts of this case also. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that there is no

provision to give copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent servant, in the rules referred to by the counsel for the respondents, yet on account of

the decision given by the Supreme Court in B. Karunakar's case (supra), an employee is to get the benefit of the report of the Inquiry Officer. It

was imperative for the respondents to furnish the enquiry report to the petitioner.

Faced with the above situation, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that even if the above decision of the Supreme Court is taken

note of, even that the relief as sought by the petitioner cannot be granted to him. This court as per the counsel is to go into further question as to

whether by nonfurnishing of enquiry report any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner ? Particular reliance is being placed on the observations

made by the Supreme Court at page 1092 of the above judgement wherein it has been observed that ""the theory of reasonable opportunity and the

principles of natural justice have been evolved to uphold the rule of law and to assist the individual to vindicate his just rights. They are not

incantations to be invoked nor rites to be performed on all and sundry occasions. Whether in fact, prejudice has been caused to the employee or

not on account of the denial to him of the report, has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case.."".

It is on the basis of above observations made by the Supreme Court, it is urged by the counsel for the respondents that the question of prejudice

in the present case should be examined.

So far as the above question is concerned, it be seen that the petitioner has been visited with an order of removal. Therefore, to say that no

prejudice has been caused to the petitioner on account of nonfurnishing of the enquiry report, would be an argument which cannot be accepted.

This petition as such is allowed. The punishing authority would redecide the matter. The petitioner would be afforded reasonable opportunity of

hearing and this hearing would be prospective in nature. As to what relief the petitioners entitled to, would depend upon the decision which the

concerned authority takes now. The relationship of master and servant shall stand revived for this limited purposes i.e. for giving opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner. As indicated above, what benefit he is to get would depend upon the decision which the respondents may ultimately take.

Let the hearing be given on 2nd May, 2001. On this date, the petitioner would appear before the punishing authority. The said authority would

take the decision of this date or on any other date to which the hearing is adjourned. Effort be made to settle the issue before 31st May, 2001.

Disposed of as such.