Punjab State Electricity Board and Another vs Uggar Sain Goyal and Others

R.K. Nehru, J.—This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court dated April 7, 1993 affirming on appeal those of the trial Judge decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.

Facts :-

The plaintiff-respondent was an employee of the Punjab State Electricity Board (for short ''the Board''). He was charge sheeted. He submitted his explanation to the charge sheet. The same was found unsatisfactory and regular enquiry was ordered against him. In the regular enquiry, the charges stood proved against him. On receipt of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority issued him a show cause notice as to why punishment of termination from services be not imposed upon him. After consideration of the reply to the show cause notice, the order of termination from service dated 8.3.1990 was passed. The plaintiff challenged the same in regular civil suit on various grounds. The Board controverted the pleas of the plaintiff and from the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

1) Whether the order dated 8.3.1990 passed by defendant No. 2 is illegal and null and void? OPP

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for? OPP

Learned trial Judge answered issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No. 2 was found to have become redundant and on ultimate analysis, the suit was decreed.

The Board challenged the same in the first appeal. The first Appellant Court dismissed the appeal on the solitary ground that copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the plaintiff along with show cause notice and that non supply of the copy of the enquiry officer''s report renders the order of punishment invalid. In arriving at this conclusion, learned first Appellate Court purports to have relied upon the decision of the apex Court reported as Union of India and others Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, . Mohammed Ramzan''s case was explained by the apex Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, Vs. Karunakar, etc. etc., , wherein it was held thus :-

xx xx xx xx xx xx "Hence till 20th November, 1990, i.e., the day on which Mohd. Ramzan Khan''s case (supra) was decided, the position of law on the subject was not settled by this Court. It is for the first time in Mohd. Ramzan Khan''s case (supra) that this Court laid down the law. That decision made the law laid down there prospective in operation, i.e. applicable to the orders of punishment passed after 20th November, 1990. The law laid down was not applicable to the orders of punishment passed before that date notwithstanding the fact that the proceedings arising out of the same were pending in courts after that date. The said proceedings had to be decided according to the law prevalent prior to the said date which did not require the authority to supply a copy of the Inquiry Officer''s report to the employee. The only exception to this was where the service rules with regard to the disciplinary proceedings themselves made it obligatory to supply a copy of the report to the employee."

The Board has framed regulations for initiating disciplinary actions against its employees. Regulation 8 of the Punjab State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment and Appeals) 1991 (for brevity the regulations) prescribes the procedure for imposition of major punishment. Clause 12 of the said Regulation 8 says that the disciplinary authority shali supply a copy of the enquiry report, in case the Inquiry Officer had found that the charges stood proved against the delinquent officer and if the Inquiry Officer had found that either the charges or some of the charges have not been proved and the disciplinary authority disagrees with the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer, the reasons for this disagreement shall be communicated to the delinquent officer.

The purpose of this provision is that the delinquent officer must have effective opportunity to make representation against the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer or with the reasons of disagreement by the disciplinary authority. The provision of Regulation 8 safeguards the interest of the delinquent officer. Otherwise, the action will be hit by the rule of arbitrariness.

Concededly, the report of the Inquiry Officer was not conveyed to the respondent. He did not have an opportunity to make the effective representation. The mandate contained in Regulation No. 8 as such, has been violated and the order of termination is rendered invalid on this short ground alone, The order of termination cannot be sustained. The judgment of the learned first Appellate Court is sustained on different reasons.

For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed. The judgments and decrees of the Courts below are affirmed. Parties are left to bear there own costs.