UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus C.L. VERMA

Citation: [1993] 1 S.C.R. 1044 · Decided: 12-02-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.M. KASLIWAL · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
C.L. VERMA 
FEBRUARY 12, 1993 
(N.M. KASLIWAL AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.] 
Civil Setvice~ismissal-Non-fumishing copy of the enquiry report to 
delinquent official-£ffect of-Application to cases pending before the court 
on the crncial date of judgment-Matter refe"ed to l<nger bench. 
Words and Phrases--''Prospectively"-Meani11g of 
The respondent-employee was dismissed from service without sup-
plying him a copy of the enquiry report at the time to hearing. The order 
of dismissal was challenged in the Central Administrative Tribunal, and 
D the same was set aside on the ground that since the employee was not 
supplied the copy of the enquiry report, the dismissal stood vitiated. 
The appellants have challenged the order of the Tribunal in this 
court. Relying on the decision in Ramzan 's case, the appellants have 
contended that the said ruling of the Supreme Court holding that the 
E delinquent should be supplied the copy of the enquiry report before 
dismissal should apply prespectlvely. 
'y 
Referring the matter to the Constitution Bench, this Court, 
HELD : 1. This appeal may be heard alongwith the Civil Appeal 
F arising out of the Special leave petition in ·Managing Director, Electronics 
Corporation of India v. Karnnakar, in which a reference has already been 
made to the Constitution Bench. [1048D) 
2. It is not proper in the interest of justice to give any direction of 
G reinstatement of the respondent in service or award of any back wages as 
done in B. Karnnakar's case. The respondent would be Governed by an 
appropriate direction that may be given at time of the final decision. The 
operation of the impugned order in appeal shall remain stayed so far as 
the respondent is concerned. [1048G-H] 
H 
Union of India & Ors. v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, [1991) SCC 188, 
1041 
-
).- . 
U.0.1. v. C.L. VERMA [KASLIWAL, J.] 
1045 
relied on. 
A 
¥ 
Managing Director Electronics Corporation of India v. B. Kanmakar, 
and JT (1992) 3 SC 605 and Kai/ash Asthana v. State of U.P., JT (1988) 2 
SC 291, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 611 of B 
1993. 
~ 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.8.91 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal Bombay Bench, in Original Application No.171 of 
1987. 
c 
-
V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, R. Sasiprabhu and Vijay 
Kumar Verma for the Appellants. 
Ms. Indira Jaising and Mukul Mudgal for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
KASLIWAL, J. Delay condoned. 
Special leave granted. 
'-{ 
The respondent C.L. Verma was an employee of Western Railway, E 
Church Gate, Bombay, He was served with a charge sheet dated 30.9.1983. 
He was dismissed from Railway service with effect . from 29.8.1985 by the 
-
disciplinary authority. An appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed by 
the President of India vide order dated 21.8.1986. The respondent chat-
lenged his dismissal in the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal F 
by an order dated 8.8.1991 set aside the order of dismissal on the ground 
~ that the respondent was not supplied the copy of the Enquiry Officer's 
report. The Tribunal placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Union 
of India and Others v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, [1991] 1 SCC 588. The 
Tribunal considered the effect of the observations made in Mohd. G 
Ramzan's case (supra) that the said decision shall have prospective ap-
r 1ication and no punishment imposed shall be open to challenge on this . 
>-
ground. The Tribunal in this regard held that no inference can be drawn 
from the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramzan 
Khan's case (supra) that all the pending matters will also abate. The 
Tribunal further held as under:-
H 
1046 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1993) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
"Thus all the pending matters which were open for ad-
judication and would be so open after the decision in 
Ramza11 Kha11's case (supra) would be adjudicated upon 
not having become final and would be thus within the ambit 
of plural judgments would have prospective effect used in 
B 
Ramza11 Kha11's case (supra)." 
The Tribunal further clarified that this decision may not preclude the 
disciplinary authority from reviving the proceeding and continuing with it 
in accordance with law from the stage of supply of the enquiry report in 
cases where dismissal or removal was the punishment. 
c 
Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the Union of India has come 
in appeal before this Court. 
We have conside

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