IMPORTANT POINT
Though Rule 55-A of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1950 (as amended by U.P. Govt.) requires furnishing of copy of enquiry report to the delinquent, but merely because an enquiry report has not been furnished to the delinquent the same would not invalidate the order of dismissal unless it is shown that the delinquent has been prejudiced thereby and in the present case there is nothing to show that the respondent has been prejudiced, as such. Setting aside the order of dismissal of the respondent from service was uncalled for.

Headnote:Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 (as amended and substituted by the U.P. Amendment)-Rule 55A-Rule requiring for furnishing copy of enquiry report to the chargesheeted employee-Whether law laid down in the case of ECIL, (1993) 4 SCC 727 to the effect that the order awarding punishment shall not be liable to be set aside ipso facto on the ground of non-furnishing of copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent unless he has been prejudiced thereby would apply to those cases also (as in the present case of Rule 55A) where under the statutory rules there is requirement of furnishing copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent? (Yes) case law discussed-Decision of Tribunal and High Court to the contrary set aside-Appeal allowed.
       Held : Thus, from the case of ECIL, it would be plain that in cases covered by the constitutional mandate, i.e., Article 311(2), non-furnishing of enquiry report would not be fatal to the order of punishment unless prejudice is shown. If for infraction of a constitutional provision an order would not be invalid unless prejudice is shown, we fail to understand how requirement in the statutory rules of furnishing copy of enquiry report would stand on a higher footing by laying down that question of prejudice is not material therein. The matter may be examined from another view point. There may be cases where there are infractions of statutory provisions, rules and regulations. Can it be said that every such infraction would make the consequent action void and/or invalid? The statute may contain certain substantive provisions, e.g., who is the competent authority to impose a particular punishment on a particular employee. Such provision must be strictly complied with as in these cases the theory of substantial compliance may not be available. For example, where a rule specifically provides that the delinquent officer shall be given an opportunity to produce evidence in support of his case after the close of the evidence of the other side and if no such opportunity is given, it would not be possible to say that the inquiry was not vitiated. But in respect of many procedural provisions, it would be possible to apply the theory of substantial compliance or the test of prejudice, as the case may be. Even amongst procedural provisions, there may be some provisions of a fundamental nature which have to be complied with and in whose case the theory of substantial compliance may not be available, but the question of prejudice may be material. In respect of procedural provisions other than of a fundamental nature, the theory of substantial compliance would be available and in such cases objections on this score have to be judged on the touchstone of prejudice. The test would be, whether the delinquent officer had or did not have a fair hearing. In the case of Russel v. Duke of Norfolk & Ors., 1949 (1) All E.R. 109, it was laid down by the Court of Appeal that the principle of natural justice cannot be reduced to any hard and fast formulae and the same cannot be put in a straitjacket as its applicability depends upon the context and the facts and circumstances of each case. Even under general law, i.e., the Code of Civil Procedure, there are various provisions, viz., Sections 99-A and 115 besides Order 21 Rule 90 where merely because there is defect, error or irregularity in the order, the same would not be liable to be set aside unless it has prejudicially affected the decision. Likewise, in the Code of Criminal Procedure also, Section 465 lays down that no finding, sentence or order passed by a competent court shall be upset merely on account of any error, omission or irregularity unless in the opinion of the court a failure of justice has, in fact, been occasioned thereby. We do not find any reason why the principle underlying the aforesaid provisions would not apply in case of the statutory provisions like Rule 55-A of the Rules in relation to disciplinary proceeding. Rule 55-A referred to above embodies in it nothing but the principles of reasonable opportunity and natural justice. (Paras 12, 13 and 14)
       Held further (on review of case law) : Thus, from a conspectus of the aforesaid decisions and different provisions of law noticed, we hold that provision in Rule 55-A of the Rules for furnishing copy of enquiry report is procedural one and of a mandatory character, but even then a delinquent has to show that he has been prejudiced by its non observance and consequently the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of ECIL, to the effect that an order passed in a disciplinary proceeding cannot ipso facto be quashed merely because a copy of the enquiry report has not been furnished to the delinquent officer, but he is obliged to show that by non-furnishing of such a report he has been prejudiced, would apply even to cases where there is requirement of furnishing copy of enquiry report under the statutory provisions and/or service rules. Turning now to the facts of the case on hand, it has to be seen whether by non-furnishing of the enquiry report the delinquent officer has suffered any prejudice. Undisputedly, after submission of enquiry report the State Government sent a show cause notice to the delinquent pursuant to which he had shown cause and the disciplinary authority after considering the said show cause, passed the order of dismissal. It is not stand of the respondent that in absence of the enquiry report he could not submit an effective show cause before the order of dismissal was passed. Neither from the order passed by the Tribunal nor the High Court it would appear that the respondent had raised this point there that he could not file an effective show cause in the absence of enquiry report nor it has been stated that in the show cause reply it was complained that the delinquent had not been served with a copy of the enquiry report. From these facts, it is not possible to hold that the respondent has been prejudiced by non-furnishing of enquiry report. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in upholding order of the Tribunal whereby order of dismissal of the respondent from service was quashed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside, but there shall be no order as to costs. (Paras 23, 24, 25 and 26)

Judgement Key Points

Yes, this principle is affirmed in the document.

In disciplinary proceedings governed by procedural rules like Rule 55-A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 (as amended by U.P. Government), the requirement to furnish a copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent is mandatory but procedural in nature. Non-compliance does not automatically invalidate the enquiry, punishment order, or dismissal unless the delinquent demonstrates actual prejudice, such as inability to submit an effective show-cause reply.[1000057010009][1000057010010][1000057010011][1000057010012][1000057010013][1000057010022][1000057010023]

The document emphasizes that procedural irregularities are assessed on the touchstone of prejudice or substantial compliance, akin to provisions in general laws where errors, omissions, or irregularities do not vitiate proceedings without failure of justice or unfair hearing.[1000057010012][1000057010013] (!) (!) (!) Courts/Tribunals must examine if non-supply affected the outcome; absent prejudice, the order stands. (!) (!) In the facts here, no prejudice was shown, as the delinquent filed a show-cause reply without complaint over the report's absence.[1000057010023]

JUDGMENT

B.N. Agrawal, J.-Judgment passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in a writ application dismissing the same has been challenged in this appeal whereby order passed by Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal quashing order of dismissal of the respondent No. 1 from service has been upheld.

2. Respondent No. 1-Harendra Arora (hereinafter referred to as the respondent ), who was temporarily appointed in the year 1960 as Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department of the Uttar Pradesh Government, was confirmed on the said post and in the year 1963 he was promoted as Executive Engineer. On 31.3.1970 the respondent was served with a chargesheet by the Administrative Tribunal incorporating therein various irregularities committed by him with regard to the purchase of goods while he was posted as Executive Engineer at the concerned station, requiring him to submit his explanation relating thereto which was duly submitted. Upon receipt of the show cause, full-fledged enquiry was conducted whereafter the Administrative Tribunal submitted its report to the State Government recording a finding therein that the charge was substantiated and recommending dismissal of the respondent from service, upon receipt of which the State Government issued a show cause to the respondent as to why he be not dismissed from service. Pursuant to the said notice, the respondent submitted his reply to the show cause notice whereupon the State Government sent the reply to the Administrative Tribunal for its comments and upon receipt of the same, order was passed on 13.3.1973 dismissing the respondent from service which order was challenged by the respondent before the High Court by filing a writ application and the same having abated in view of the coming into force of the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976, a claim petition was filed by the respondent before the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal challenging his aforesaid order of dismissal. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition and quashed the order of dismissal principally on the ground that copy of the enquiry report, as required under Rule 55-A of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 as amended by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, was not furnished to the delinquent against which order when a writ application was filed on behalf of the State, a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the same upholding order of the Tribunal. Hence this appeal by special leave.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of the appeal submitted that in view of the judgment rendered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors.1, merely because an enquiry report has not been furnished to the delinquent the same would not invalidate the order of dismissal unless it is shown that the delinquent has been prejudiced thereby and in the present case there is nothing to show that the respondent has been prejudiced, as such setting aside the order of dismissal of the respondent from service was uncalled for. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the law laid down in the case of ECIL has no application to this case as according to the set of rules governing service condition of the respondent, there was requirement of furnishing copy of proceedings of enquiry, which would obviously include the enquiry report, whereas in the case of ECIL there was no such requirement under the statutory rules, rather the requirement was by virtue of interpretation put forth upon Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India by a three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan2, as approved in the case of ECIL, and consequently the prejudice theory as laid down in the case of ECIL will not apply to the present case and the order was rightly quashed for mere infraction of the rule in not furnishing c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 837

Cases Referred (10)