LexMANAGING DIRECTOR, ECIL, HYDERABAD ETC. ETC. versus B. KARUNAKAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A MANAGING DIRECTOR, ECIL, HYDERABAD ETC. ETC. B v. B. KARUNAKAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. OCTOBER 1, 1993 [M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, 0., AND P.B. SAWANT, K. RAMASWAMY, S. MOHAN AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.) Constitution of India, 1950: Article 311 (2)-First proviso (As amended by Forty Second Amendment) Delinquent Employee-Inquiry-Inquiry Of- C ficer not Disciplinary Authority-Right of Employee to receive copy of Inquiry Officer's report before disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions as to guilt or innocence of employee-Employee held entitled to report-Denial of Report is denial of reasonable opportunity to employee to prove in- nocence-Rules denying report are against principles of natural justice-Report D should be supplied even if rules do not pennit-Report should be given not- withstanding the nature of punishment-Failure of employee to ask for report is not waiver. Failure to supply Report-Effect of--Distinction should be made where non-furnishing has caused prejudice to employee and where it has E not-whether inf act prejudice has been caused depends on facts of each case. Genesis of the law on the subject of furnishing the report of the Inquiry officer/authority to the delinquent employee-Referred to-Effect of 42nd Amendment explained. F Article 141-Supreme Court-Power to make the law laid down prospective in operation-Doctrine of prospective overruling. Law laid down in Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case-Held applicable to all employees in all establishments whether Government or non-Government, G public or private-Rule in Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case is applicable prospec- tively-Only Exception is where the rules themselves provide for supply of copy of report to employees-Grant of relief by Supreme Court to parties in Ramzan Khan's case held per incuriam. By an order dated 5th August, 1991 passed in Managing Director, H Electronic Corporation of India v. B. Karunakar, J.T. 1992 (3) S.C. 605, a 576 l MANAGING DIRECTOR, ECIL v. KARUNAKAR 577 three Judge Bench of this Court referred that matter for being placed A before a larger bench, as the Bench found a conflict in the two decisions of this Court, viz., Kai/ash Chander Asthana etc. etc. v. State of U.P and Ors etc. etc., [1988] 3 S.C.C. 600 and Union of India and Ors. v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, [1991] 1 S.C.C. 588. Accordingly that matter along with other connected matters were heard by the Constitution Bench on the question B whether the Report of the Inquiry Officer/Authority who/which is ap- pointed by the Disciplinary Authority to hold an inquiry into the charges against the delinquent employee, is required to be furnished to the employee to enable him to make proper representation to the disciplinary authority before such authority arrives at its finding with regard to the guilt or otherwise of the employee and the punishment, if any, to be C awarded to him. Disposing the matters, this Court HELD : By the Court : D (i) When the Inquiry Officer is not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee has a right to receive a copy of the Inquiry Officer's report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the guilt or innocence of the employee with regard to the charges levelled against him. A denial of the Inquiry Officer's report the discipli· nary authority takes its decision on the charges, is a denial of reasonable E opportunity to the employee to prove his innocence and is a breach of the principle of natural justice. [ 611-E-F] (ii) Statutory rules, if any, which deny the report to the employee are against the principles of natural justice and therefore, invalid. Employee is entitled to report even if the rules do not permit the furnishing of the report. [611-HJ (iii) The delinquent employee has the right to receive the Inquiry Officer's report notwithstanding the nature of punishment. [ 612-E] F G (iv) Failure of the employee to ask for the report is not to be con- strued as waiver of his right. [612-F] (v) Effect of non-furnishing of the enquiry report to delinquent employee on the order of punishment and relief to be granted in such cases depends on the prejudice caused to the employee. [613-D-F] H 578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A Per Sawant, J. (For himself, CJ, S. Mohan and B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.J.). 1. Where the Inquiry Officer is other than the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary proceedings break into two stages. The first stage en
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.