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.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the order dated 12.08.2006 passed by respondent No. 4; whereby an order of punishment forfeiting salary of six days and increment of one year amounting to black mark has been imposed upon this petitioner.

The petitioner has further assailed the appellate order whereby the order of punishment has been sustained.

3. Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards Rule 824 of Jharkhand Police Manual and submits that as per Rule 824 (f) read with 828(a), the items mentioned in serial (a) to (f) of Rule 824 shall be deemed to be a major punishment and Rule 835 has further clarified that whatever may be the numbers of black marks in any one act of delinquent, it shall count as one major punishment.

4. He contended that respondent authorities have considered the punishment imposed upon this petitioner as a minor punishment and that is the reason they have not even supplied the enquiry report. He further submits that the petitioner has been prejudiced by non-supplying of the enquiry report, inasmuch as, if he would have received the enquiry report, he could have given its reply. As such, the impugned order may be quashed and the case may be allowed in favour of this petitioner.

5. Mr. Devesh Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent State submits that in view of the latest judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Mohammad Badruddin reported in (2019) 16 SCC 69 it has been held that the requirement of the second show-cause notice of proposed punishment has been dispensed with. Para 16-22 of the judgment is quoted as under:

“16. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find merit in the arguments raised by Mr. Viswanathan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, to some extent. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment deleted the following words appearing in clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, which reads as under:

“and where it is proposed, after such inquiry to impose on him any such penalty, until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed, but only on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry.”

17. A perusal of such omitted provisions would show that an opportunity was required to be given to submit a representation on penalty proposed but such requirement had been omitted by 42nd Constitutional Amendment. This Court in Mohd. Ramzan case considered the effect of amendment and held as under:

“9. Where, however, the inquiry officer furnishes a report with or without proposal of punishment the report of the inquiry officer does constitute an additional material which would be taken into account by the disciplinary authority in dealing with the matter. In cases where punishment is proposed there is an assessment of the material and a tentative conclusion is reached for consideration of the disciplinary authority and that action is one where the prejudicial material against the delinquent is all the more pronounced.

12. We have already noticed the position that the Forty-second Amendment has deleted the second stage of the inquiry which would commence with the service of a notice proposing one of the three punishments mentioned in Article 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 Article 311(2), in our opinion, does not bring about any material change in regard to requiring the copy of the report to be provided to the delinquent.

15. Deletion of the second opportunity from the scheme of Article 311(2) of the Constitution has nothing to do with providing of a copy of the report to the delinquent i