LexSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. versus V.B. HIREGOWDAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
v.
V.B. H!REGOWDAR
JULY 19, 1996
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND KT. THOMAS, .TJ.)
Se1vice Law-Depa1tme11tal enquil)--Non supply of enquily repo1t to
delinquent employee-Effect 011 punishme11t--Govemment of Ka1c
nataka-Department of Child Developme11t-Employee-Charge of i1c
regularities in the release of Governme11t fu11ds-lnqui1y-Reductio11 i11
ra11k-{)rder dated 10th Ap1i/ 1991>-Cha/le11ge before T1ibunal-Ground that
as the i11quil)' report was not furnished to employee punishment was
vitiated-Tribunal holdi11g that in view of the judgment in Ramzan Khan's
case punishment imposed on respo11dent stood vitiated-Appeal by
State--He/d approach adopted by Tribu11al was improper-Held, ntle laid
_ down in Rantzan Khan's case on 20th Noventber, 1990 was prospective-No
order of Punishment made before that was to be tested on the basis of law
laid down in Ranizan Khan's case-Punislunent on respondent iniposed
nzuch before the judgntent in Ran1zan Khan's case was delivered-Law laid
down i11 that case was i11applicab/e-lmpug11ed order of T1ib1mal set aside.
*Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Kha11, (1991] 1 SCC 588;
Ra11gaswamaiah's case CA No. 4220 of 1992 decided by Supreme Court on
12th October, 1992 and State of Kamat aka and Anr. v. Dr. M.
Sathyanarayana Shetty Special leave petition decided by Supreme Court Off' ·
13th May, 1992, held inapplicable.
Managing Director, ECJL, Hyderabad and Ors. v. B. Kanmakar and
Ors., [1993] 4 SCC. 727, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9750 of
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.92 of the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Application No. 2241 of 1990.
M. Veerappa for the Appellant.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
767
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
768
SUPRFME COURT RFl'ORTS I 19961SUPP.3 S.C.R.
A
Special leave granted.
The respondent \Vho \Vas st:rving as an ofliccr of the (fovernn1ent of
Karnalaka in the Department of Child Development in Bid District in the
year ·1982~83 faced disciplinary inquiry on charges of certain irregularities
B
in the release of Government funds. The Inquiry Officer, who conducted
the inquiry found the respondent guilty of the charges framed against him.
The disciplinary authority accepted the report of the Inquiry Officer and
by its order dated 10 the April, 1990 imposed penalty uf reduction in rank
upon the respondent. The respondent approached the Karnataka Ad-
ministrative Tribunal and challenged the ordcr of the disciplinary authority.
c On 28th August, 1990 the Tribunal dismissed the application on merits
holding the order of disciplinary authority lo be vaild. After dismissal of
the application, the respondent filed a review applicatio1; before the
Tribunal wherein he contended that the ground urged by him regarding
non-furnishing of the inquiry report, \Vhich ha<l vitiated the punishment
D imposed upon him, was not considered by lhe Tribunal while disposing of
the Original Application on 28th August, 1990. The review application was
allowed on 11th November, 1.991 am! the order dated 28th August, 1990
was recalled. The application was put up for fresh hearing. By its order
dated 18th November, 1992, the Tribunal relying upon the judgment in
E Union of I11dia v. Mohd. Ramza11 Khan, I 1991 J l SCC 588 allowed the
Original Aprlication holding that the order of punishment stood vitiated
on account of non supply of the copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer
to the applicant. It is that order which has been put in issue in this appeal.
F
From a perusal of the record we find that the attention of the
Tribunal was drawn by the appellant to the observations in U11io11 of I11dia
u11d Othe1s v. Mohd. Ramzan Khu11, (supra) to the effect that the judgment
in the said case would have only prospective application. The appellant
also brought to the notice of the Tribunal another judgment of this Court
in Ra11gaswamaiah's case (Civil Appeal No. 4220 of 1992 disposed of on
G 12th October, 1992) wherein this Court had clarified that the judgment
delivered in Ramzun Khu11's case (supra) was of prospective application
and was not to apply to cases where disciplinary authority had imposed
punishment on the delinquent employee earlier to 20th November, 1990,
the date on \vhich the judgn1cnt in Ran1za11 Khan's case (supra) was
H
delivered. The Tribunal, however, "declined" to apply the said ruling and
ST/\ TE v. V.13. l-l!REGOWDAR Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.