LexHARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ANR. versus KAILASH CHANDRA AHUJA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 222 A HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ANR. ,.. v. KAILASH CHANDRA AHUJA (Civil Appeal No. 4222 of 2008) B JULY 8, 2008 ....... ~. [C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ:] Service Law - Disciplinary proceedings - Non-supply of Inquiry Officer's report to the delinquent by Disciplinary Au- c thority - Effect of - Held: Inquiry Officer's report must be fur- nished to the delinquent employee - However, failure to do so would not vitiate the order of punishment unless it resulted in prejudice to the employee - Whether prejudice had been caused to employee depends on facts and circumstances of D each case - On facts, High Court did not record any finding that prejudice caused to delinquent employee - Thus, order ~- of High Court setting aside the dismissal order cannot be up- held - Matter remitted back to decide whether prejudice caused to employee - Punjab Financial Corporation (Staff) E Regulations, 1961- Regulation 41 (1)(eJ.-Administrative law - Natural justice. The respondent was appointed as a Technical Of- ficer with the appellant-Corporation. He was reprimanded on two occasions. Thereafter, on basi~ of certain allega- F tions against the respondent, the Corporation initiated ~ ~I proceedings against him. The Inquiry Officer was ap- pointed and he exonerated the respondent of all the charges. However, on account of certain deficiencies in the report, the matter was remanded to the Inquiry Officer. G The respondent appeared and participated in the proceed- ings. The Inquiry Officer submitted the report and held the respondent guilty. Thereafter, the respondent was is- j \. .. sued notice to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service under Regulation 41 (1) (e) of the H 222 HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ANR. v. 223 I "" KAILASH CHANDRAAHUJA .J Punjab Financial Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1961 . A The deHnquent filed a reply and was given a hearing. Thereafter, he was dismissed from service. The respon- dent filed appeal before the Corporation but the same was dismissed. The respondent then filed a writ petition. High Court set aside the order of dismissal on the ground of B /. ..... non-supply of the report of the Inquiry Officer to the re- ... spondent. Hence the present appeal. ': Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High - Court, the Court ~. c .. HELD: 1.1 It is clear that though supply of report of .... Inquiry Officer is part and parcel of natural justice and I must be furnished to the delinquent- employee, failure to , do so would not automatically result in quashing or set- ting aside of the order or the order being declared null D ~ and void. For that, the delinquent employee has to show 'prejudice'. Unless he is able to show that non-supply of report of the Inquiry Officer has resulted in prejudice or miscarriage of justice, an order of punishment cannot be held to be vitiated. And whether prejudice had been E caused to the delinquent-employee depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no rule of uni- versa! application can be laid down. [Para 47] [241-E-G] 1.2 In the instant case, it is not in dispute by and be- I !. } tween the parties either before the High Court or before F .... this Court, that a copy of the report of Inquiry Officer was not supplied to the delinquent-writ-petitioner. The High Court failed to appreciate and apply in its proper perspec- tive the ratio laid down in B. Karunakar's case, though the High Court was conscious of the controversy before it. G The Court also noted the submission of the Corporation that there was 'no whisper' in the writ petition showing ~) ! any prejudice to the delinquent as required by B. Karunakar's case, but allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of punishment observing that in such H 224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. A cases, prejudice is 'writ large'. It did.·not record any find- ing that prejudice had been caused to the delinquent- employee. The above said observation and conclusion is not in consonance with the decisions referred includ- ing a decision of the Constitution Bench in B. Karunakar's B case. Hence, the view of the High Court cannot be up- held and is set aside. [Paras 22, 23, 24 and 48] ·[233-E, 23.3-G,H, 234 A, 241 H and 242 A-B] 1.3 Since the High Court did not consider whether failure to supply the report of the Inquiry Officer had or had C not resulted in prejudi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.