IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.
Md. Nur @ Noor Islam - Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam - Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 8318 of 2018
Decided On : 05-01-2022
Inquiry Report - Disciplinary Proceeding - Forty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India - Article 311 - (1991) 1 SCC 588, (1993) 4 SCC 727 - The court held that the delinquent employee has a right to receive a copy of the Inquiry Officer's report before the Disciplinary Authority arrives at its conclusion with regard to the guilt or innocence of the employee. The court also emphasized that the opportunity granted by the second show cause notice pertained only to why a major penalty should not be imposed upon the petitioner, and there was no requirement to submit any response on the nature of the penalty. The court further stated that instead of quashing the entire proceeding, a correct approach would be to remand the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to continue with the proceeding from the stage of issuing the second show cause notice in accordance with law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a disciplinary proceeding resulting in his removal from service, citing non-furnishing of the copy of the Inquiry Report as the principal ground.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the second show cause notice did not provide a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner to defend his case and that there was no requirement to submit any response on the nature of the penalty. The court held that all actions taken subsequent to the second show cause notice, including the order of penalty and the order of the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal, were liable to be set aside.
Issues: Non-furnishing of the copy of the Inquiry Report, denial of a reasonable opportunity to defend the case, and the requirement to submit a response on the nature of the penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: The delinquent employee has a right to receive a copy of the Inquiry Officer's report before the Disciplinary Authority arrives at its conclusion with regard to the guilt or innocence of the employee. The opportunity granted by the second show cause notice pertains only to why a major penalty should not be imposed upon the petitioner, and there is no requirement to submit any response on the nature of the penalty.
Final Decision: The court set aside all actions taken subsequent to the second show cause notice and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner in service. It granted further opportunity to the authorities to start a de novo proceeding from the stage of furnishing the second show cause notice, following the principles laid down in the referred case laws.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J
Heard Shri P Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri Rahul Dhar, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, Assam representing all the respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging a disciplinary proceeding which have culminated in an order of penalty dtd. 31/10/2014 by which the petitioner, who was serving as Constable in the Traffic Branch of Goalpara Police Station, was removed from service.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the statutory appeal preferred by him was also dismissed vide an order dt. 12/2/2015. The principal ground taken in the writ petition is non-furnishing of the copy of the Inquiry Report. The petitioner contends that though a second show cause notice dtd. 21/10/2014 was issued, the same did not contain the copy of the Inquiry Report for which the petitioner had suffered prejudice in making his response as well as defend himself.
4. Shri Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner, in this connection, has drawn the attention of the communication dt. 30/10/2014 submitted by the petitioner in response to the second show cause notice. The said communication dtd. 30/10/2014 would reveal that on the first available opportunity itself, the petitioner had pointed out to the disciplinary authority that copy of the Inquiry Report, though mentioned in the second show cause notice dtd. 21/10/2014, was not enclosed thereto and therefore, the petitioner was not able to submit any effective reply.
5. On the other hand, Shri Dhar, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate submits that the records would reveal that the petitioner himself received the second show cause notice 21/10/2014 by putting his signature on 25/10/2014 and the show cause notice itself had categorically stated regarding the enclosure being the copy of the findings of the Inquiry Officer.
6. Though the aforesaid question would be a disputed question of fact, the same would not detain this Court to adjudicate the present case which is altogether on a different ground.
7. A bare perusal of the second show cause notice dtd. 21/10/2014 would disclose that even before the second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority had already come to a conclusion of accepting the findings of the Inquiry Officer. The show cause notice dtd. 21/10/2014 further discloses that opportunity was given as to why major penalty should not be imposed on him.
8. The requirement of furnishing a copy of the Inquiry Report to a delinquent has been held to be a mandatory requirement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases, including in the case of Union of India Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 588. Subsequently, a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manager Director, ECIL, Hyder-abad and Ors. Vs. B. Karunakar and Ors., reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 while reiterating the requirement laid down in the case of Mohd. Ramzan Khan (supra) has held that the delinquent employee has a right to receive a copy of the Inquiry Officer's report before the Disciplinary Authority arrives at its conclusion with regard to the guilt or innocence of the employee with regard to the charges levelled against him. The said right has been held to be a part of the employee's right to defend himself against the charges levelled and a denial of the report of the Inquiry Officer before the Disciplinary Authority takes its decision on the charges, is denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee to prove his innocence. It has further been held that such denial would amount to violation of the principles of nature justice. For ready reference, paragraph 29 of the case of Manager Director, ECIL, Hyderabad (supra) is extracted hereinbelow:
Union of India Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan
Manager Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. Vs. B. Karunakar and Ors.
The delinquent employee has a right to receive a copy of the Inquiry Officer's report before the Disciplinary Authority arrives at its conclusion with regard to the guilt or innocence of the employee....
The right to receive the enquiry report and a second show-cause notice is a fundamental aspect of the principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings, and failure to provide these rights in....
It is trite that the principles of natural justice must be read into the unoccupied interstices of the statute/rules or regulations unless there is a clear mandate to the contrary
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of supplying the enquiry report before imposing punishment, as clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
The disciplinary authority must provide the delinquent officer with the enquiry report and tentative reasons for disagreement, in accordance with principles of natural justice.
Failure to provide an inquiry report to a delinquent officer violates principles of natural justice, making disciplinary action invalid.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.