Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 748

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS - Appellants
Versus
MOHAMMAD BADRUDDIN - Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5604 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 20488 OF 2017 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5605 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 20770 OF 2017
Decided On : 16-07-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kapur, AOR Ms. Megha Karnwal, Adv. Mr. Harshal Narayan, Adv. Ms. Shubhra Kapur, Adv. Mr. Kauser Husain, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Shradha Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
Supply of inquiry report with order of punishment is not against Rules now.
No bar on taking previous punishments into consideration for imposing punishment.
When disciplinary authority differs from enquiry report he has to give reasons and these should be communicated to delinquent before imposing punishment.

Headnote:(a) Service law - Disciplinary proceedings - Requirement of supply of inquiry report with second show cause - Applicable after November 20, 1990, i.e., date of judgment in Mohd. Ramzan Khan - Instantly order of punishment issued on August 12, 1988 - Held, supply of inquiry report with order of punishment not against Rules. (Para 7)
       (b) Service law - Disciplinary proceeding - After 42nd amendment to Constitution of India - Requirement of second show cause notice of proposed punishment dispensed with - Now it is only required to apprise delinquent of Inquiry Officer’s report - No necessity of communicating proposed punishment - No bar on taking previous punishments into consideration - Non-communication of the previous punishments will not vitiate the punishment imposed. (Para 23, 24)
       (c) Service law - Disciplinary proceeding - If disciplinary authority differs with inquiry report he has to give reasons of his disagreement and communicate it to the delinquent - Instantly charge no. 4 held to be proved by enquiry officer and all other three charges not proved - Disciplinary authority differing on charge no. 1 and 5 and holding it to be proved - Not communicating the same to delinquent - Imposing punishment of removal - High Court rightly setting aside order of punishment. (Para 29)
       (d) Service law - Disciplinary proceeding - Violation of natural justice - Order of punishment set aside - Delinquent already attained age of superannuation - There cannot be any order of reinstatement or of suspension - Therefore matter remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority with direction to pass an appropriate order within three months in respect of payment of back wages as well as terminal benefits, if any, payable to the delinquent. (Para 32, 33)
       Facts of the case:
       In the first appeal the Appellate Authority had altered the punishment of compulsory retirement to one of reversion to the post of Junior Management Grade at the lowest stage vide order dated October 12, 1988.
       The Division Bench set aside the order of punishment on the ground that copy of the Inquiry Report was not supplied to the delinquent before the Disciplinary Authority passed an order of punishment, but was supplied along with the order of punishment, therefore, there is complete violation of cardinal principle of natural justice.
       In the second appeal the respondent was inflicted penalty of removal from service. The Division Bench set aside the order of removal on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice as the reasons of disagreement in respect of charge Nos. 1 and 5 were not communicated to the delinquent.
       Finding of the Court:
       Orders of punishment cannot be sustained.
       Result: Appeals disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present civil appeals arise out of an order passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi on April 18, 2017, whereby the intra court appeals filed by the respondent Mohammad Badruddin were allowed and the orders of punishment were set aside. The respondent was granted all consequential benefits including back wages.

3. The High Court has dealt with two appeals arising out of two separate writ petitions imposing separate punishments.

4. Firstly, we take up Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20770 of 2017. The said appeal is directed against an order passed by the High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 261 of 2007 wherein the Appellate Authority altered the punishment of compulsory retirement in terms of Rule 49(1) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules(‘Rules’.) to one of reversion to the post of Junior Management Grade at the lowest stage vide order dated October 12, 1988. Such order became the subject matter of challenge in C.W.J.C. No. 444 of 1989. The writ petition was dismissed but the letters patent appeal was allowed. The Division Bench set aside the order of punishment on the ground that copy of the Inquiry Report was not supplied to the delinquent before the Disciplinary Authority passed an order of punishment, but was supplied along with the order of punishment, therefore, there is complete violation of cardinal principle of natural justice.

5. We find that the Constitution Bench judgment reported in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. v. B.Karunakar & Ors., ((1993) 4 SCC 727) though quoted by the High Court, had been applied wrongly. The Disciplinary Authority has passed an order of punishment on August 12, 1988 i.e. before this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, ((1991) 1 SCC 588) laid down that wherever Inquiry Officer 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 of such report and will also be entitled to make a representation against it. A non-furnishing of the report would amount to violation of rules of natural justice and make the final order liable to challenge hereafter. However, the said judgment itself has given prospective effect i.e. that the inquiries concluded prior to the judgment dated November 20, 1990 will not be affected by the law laid down in the said judgment.

6. The judgment in Mohd. Ramzan case was approved by the Constitution Bench in B. Karunakar, wherein it was held as under:

“34. However, it cannot be gainsaid that while Mohd. Ramzan Khan case[(1991) 1 SCC 588 : 1991 SCC (L&S)612 : (1991) 16 ATC 505] made the law laid down there prospective in operation, while disposing of the cases which were before the Court, the Court through inadvertence gave relief to the employees concerned in those cases by allowing their appeals and setting aside the disciplinary proceedings. The relief granted was obviously per incuriam. The said relief has, therefore, to be confined only to the employees concerned in those appeals. The law which is expressly made prospective in operation there, cannot be applied retrospectively on account of the said error. It is now well settled that the courts can make the law laid down by them prospective in operation to prevent unsettlement of the settled positions, to prevent administrative chaos and to meet the ends of justice. In this connection, we may refer to some well-known decisions on the point.”

7. Since the order of punishment was passed by the Disciplinary Authority prior to November 20, 1990, therefore, the same could not be set aside only for the reason that the copy of the Inquiry Report was not supplied to the delinquent. Consequently, the order of the High Court in LPA No. 261 of 2007 is set aside and the order of punishment of reversion to the post of J

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 748

Cases Referred (9)