LexUNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus E. BASHYAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
~:, ,. ) y _,. "' ' ,,,..i, - ~ l UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. E. BASHYAN MARCH 11, 1988 [M.P. THAKKAR AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.] Constitution of India: Article 311(2) Disciplinary Authority- Failure to supply copy of report of Enquiry Officer to delinquent be'fore recording finding about guilt-Whether violative of principles of natural justice-Matter referred to a larger Bench. Administrative Law: Natural Justice Enquiry Officer's report- Supply of to delinquent by Disciplinary Authority before final order- Necessity for-Matter referred to a larger Bench. The enquiry officer's report was not made available to the respon- dent before the disciplinary authority passed the final order recording the finding of guilt against him. The Central Administrative Tribunal held in favour of the respondent. A B c D In the special leave petition it was contended for the Union of India that the only_ authority which really and actually holds the delin- quent guilty need not afford any opportunity to him before finding of E guilt is recorded and the material on which the authority acts. Referring the matter to a larger Bench the Court observed: In the event of failure to furnish the report of the Enquiry Officer the delinquent is deprived of crucial and critical material which is taken F into account by the real authority who holds him guilty namely, the Disciplinary Authority. He is the real authority because the Enquiry Officer does no more than act as a delegate and furnishes the relevant material including his own assessment regarding the guilt to assist the Disciplinary Authority who alone records the effective finding in the sense that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer standing by G themselves are lacking in force and effectiveness. Non-supply of the report would therefore constitute violation of principles of natural justice and accordingly will be tantamount to denial of reasonable oppor- tunity within the meaning of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. [2148-C] There can be glaring errors and omissions in the report. Or it may -H 209 ··-ll 210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19881 3 S.C.R. A haYe been based on no evidence or rendered in disregard of or by O\'erlooking evidence. If the report is not made available to the delin- quent. this crucial material which enters into the consideration of the Disciplinary Authority never comes to be known to the delinquent and he gets no opportunity to point out such errors and omissions and B c disabuse the mind of the Disciplinary Authority before he is held guilty or condemned. Serving a copy or enquiry report on the delinquent to enable him to point out anomalies, if any, before finding about guilt is recorded by the Disciplinary Authority is altogether a different matter from serving a second show cause notice to enable the delinquent in the context of the measure of the penalty to be imposed, which bas been dispensed with by virtue of the amendment to Art. 311(2) by 42nd Amendment of the Constitution. [21 JE-HI Since the question whether it is the right of the delinquent to pursuade the Authority which makes up its mind as regards the guilt of the delinquent that such a finding is not warranted in the light of the Report of the Enquiry Officer was not directly in issue and has neither D been presented nor discussed in all its ramifications in C.A. No. 537 of 1988 (Union of India & Ors. v. M. Sivagnam) decided on February 8. 1988 by a Bench comprising of three Judges, and the Secretary. Central 'Board of Excise & Customs & Ors. v. K.S. Mahalingam, (1986 (I) SCALE 1308) decided by a Bench of t\j'.O Judges, relied on by the peti- tioners to contend that the point is directly or at any rate by necessary E implication covered in their favour, the matter is rcfe.rred to a larger bench on considerations of propriety. [2140-GJ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Peti- tion (Civil) No. 2725·of 1988 F From the Judgment and Order dated 12.11.1987 of the Central Administrative Tribunal. New Bombay in Tr. Appln. No. 1of1986 G. Rama Swamy, Additional Solicitor General, A. Subba Rao and P. Parmeshwaran for the Petitioners. G Urmila Sirur for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered by y - ,• THAKKAR, J: This matter raises. a question of mega-impor- tance viz. whether failure to supply a copy of the Report of the Enquiry 'j H Officer to the delinquent before the Disciplinary Authority m
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.