G H STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. versus MOHAMMAD BADRUDDIN

Citation: [2019] 9 S.C.R. 1016 · Decided: 16-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1016
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
   STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
MOHAMMAD BADRUDDIN
 (Civil Appeal No.5604 of  2019).
JULY 16, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Service Law:
Punishment of reversion – Propriety of –  Disciplinary
proceedings –  Departmental enquiry – Punishment of compulsory
retirement – Appellate Authority altered the punishment to one of
reversion – Reviewing Authority sustained the punishment of
reversion  – Writ petition by the delinquent dismissed by Single Judge
of High Court  – Division Bench of High Court in writ appeal
relying on Ramzan Khan case set aside the order of  punishment
holding that copy of Inquiry Report was not supplied to the
delinquent before passing order of punishment and hence violative
of principles of natural justice – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held:
The judgment relied on by the Division Bench, whereby
non-furnishing of inquiry report was held to be violative of rules of
natural justice, since was given prospective effect, the inquiries
conducted prior to date of that judgment (i.e. 20.11.1990) would
not be affected by the law laid down in that judgment – The order
of punishment in the present case was passed prior to 20.11.1990,
it could not have been set aside on the ground of non-furnishing of
copy of inquiry report – Punishment of reversion is restored.
Removal from service – Propriety of  – Disciplinary inquiry –
5 charges levelled against the delinquent – Inquiry Officer found
only charge No. 4 as proved while other charges (charge Nos. 1, 2,
3 & 5) were not found proved – Disciplinary Authority disagreed
with the findings in respect of charge Nos. 1 and 5 – Thus on the
basis of charge Nos. 1,4 and 5 and also on the basis of punishment
of reversion in earlier departmental proceedings, inflicted penalty/
punishment of removal from service – Order was confirmed in
departmental appeal – Single Judge of High Court dismissed the
writ petition – Division Bench of High Court, in writ appeal, held
[2019]  9 S.C.R. 1016
1016
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1017
that punishment of removal stands vitiated because the reasons for
disagreement with the Inquiry Report in respect of charge Nos. 1
and 5 was not supplied to the delinquent and because the previous
punishment of reversion was taken into consideration without
bringing it to the notice of the delinquent – Appeal to Supreme Court
– Held: There is no mandatory requirement of communicating the
proposed punishment after 42nd Constitutional amendment –
Therefore, there cannot be any bar in the constitutional scheme to
take into consideration previous punishments – Thus,
non-communication of previous punishments in the show
cause notice will not vitiate the punishment imposed –
Non-communication of reasons for disagreement recorded in
respect of charge Nos. 1 and 5 also cannot be faulted with –
However, in exercise of power of judicial review, Supreme Court
cannot maintain the punishment of removal from service in view of
findings recorded on charge No. 4 – It is for the Disciplinary
Authority to consider whether punishment of removal on the basis
of charge No. 4 alone was sustainable or not – Matter is remitted
back to Disciplinary Authority.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD:
Civil Appeal No. 5605/2019
1. The Division Bench by impugned order set aside the
order of punishment on the ground that copy of the Inquiry Report
was not supplied to the delinquent, before the Disciplinary
Authority passed an order of punishment, but was supplied along
with the order of punishment, therefore, there is complete
violation of cardinal principle of natural justice. In *Mohd. Ramzan
Khan case (case relied on by Division Bench) laid down that
wherever Inquiry Officer has furnished a report to the Disciplinary
Authority at the conclusion of the inquiry holding the delinquent
guilty of all or any of the charges with proposal for any particular
punishment or not, the delinquent is entitled to a copy of such
report and will also be entitled to make a representation against
it.  A non-furnishing of the report would amount to violation of
rules of natural justice and make the final order liable to challenge
hereafter. However, the said judgment itself has been given
 STATE BANK OF INDIA. v. MOHAMMAD BADRUDDIN
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1018
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
prospective effect i.e. the inquiries concluded prior to the
judgment dated November 20, 1990 will not be affected by the
law laid down in the said judg

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.