UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus MOHD. RAMZAN KHAN

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 248 · Decided: 20-11-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
MOHD. RAMZAN KHAN 
NOVEMBER 20, 1990 
[RANGANATH MISRA, C.J, P.B. SAWANT AND 
K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 311(2)-Deletion of second 
notice proposing punishments mentioned in Article 3 I I (2 ), by the Forty-
Second Amendment-Whether delinquent entitled to copy of inquiry 
report before imposing punishment-Non-supply of report-Whether 
violates rules of natural justice. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14, JI I-Supply of inquiry 
report in the case of the inquiry officer not being the disciplinary autho-
rity and non-supply of the report in the case of the inquiry officer being 
the disciplinary authority~Whether Article 14 attracted. 
In the civil appeals by special leave, the short point for detennina-
tion was whether with the alteration of the provisions of A11icle 311(2) 
under the Forty-Second Amendment of the Constitution doing away 
with the opportunity of showing cause against the proposed punish-
ment, the delinquent has no right to be entitled to a copy of the report of 
inquiry in the disciplinary proceedings. 
· 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court, 
HELD: 1. The Forty-Second Amendment has deleted the second 
F 
stage of the inquiry which would commence with the service of a notice 
proposing one of the three punishments mentioned in Art. 311(1) and 
the delinquent officer would represent against the same and on the basis 
of such representation and/or oral hearing granted, the disciplinary 
authority decides about the punishment. Deletion of this part from the 
.concept of reasonable opportunity in Art. 311(2) does not bring about 
G any material change in regard to requiring the copy of the report to be 
provided to the delinquent. [255H-256C] 
2. Deletion of the second opportunity from the scheme of Art. 
311(2) has nothing to do with providing of a copy of the report to the 
delinquent in the matter of making his representation. Even though the 
H second stage of the inquiry in Art. 311(2) has been abolished by amend-
248 
U.0.1. v. MOHD. RAMZAN 
249 
ment, the delinquent is still entitled to represent against the conclusion 
of the Inquiry Officer holding th.at the charges or some of the charges 
are established and holding the delinquent guilty of such charges. For 
doing away with the effect of the enquiry report or to meet the recomen-
dations of the Inquiry Officer in the matter of imposition of punish-
ment, furnishing a copy of the report becomes necessary and to have the 
proceeding completed by using some material behind th~ back of the 
delinquent is a position not countenanced by fair procedure. [257C-F) 
3. While by law application of natural justice could be totally 
ruled out or truncated, nothing has been done here which could be 
taken as keeping natural justice out of the proceedings and the series of 
pronouncements of this Court making rules of natural justice applic-
able to such an inquiry are not affected by the 42nd Amendment. 
Supply of a copy of the inquiry report along with recommendations, if 
any, in the matter of proposed punishment to be inflicted would be 
within the rules of natural justice and the delinquent would, therefore, 
be entitled to the supply of a copy thereof. The Forty-Second Amend-
ment has not brought about any change in this position. [257E-H) 
4. Where the disciplinary authority is the Inquiry Officer there is 
no report. He becomes the first assessing authority to consider the 
evidence directly for finding out whether the delinquent in guilty and 
liable to be punished. Even otherwise, the inquiries which are directly 
handled by the disciplinary authority and those which are allowed to be 
handled by the Inquiry Officer can easily be. classified into two 
separate groups--0ne, where there is no inquiry report on account of 
the fact that the disciplinary authority is the Inquiry Officer and 
inquiries where there is a report on account of the fact that an officer 
other than the disciplinary authority has been constituted as the 
Inquiry Officer. [258A-C) 
5. Wherever there has been an Inquiry Officer and he 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 11f such report and will also be entitled to make a 
representation against it, if he so desires, and non-furnishing of the 
report wou

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