Back
B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, K. RAMASWAMY, M. N. VENKATACHALIAH, P. B. SAWANT, S. MOHAN
Managing Director, Ecil, Hyderabad – Appellant
Versus
B. Karunakar – Respondent
The core legal point in this judgement concerns the entitlement of a delinquent employee to receive a copy of the inquiry report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusion regarding guilt or innocence and the subsequent imposition of punishment. The judgement emphasizes that the right to receive the inquiry report is an essential component of the reasonable opportunity and principles of natural justice mandated by constitutional provisions, particularly Article 311(2). The non-supply of the inquiry report to the employee is regarded as a violation of these principles, leading to prejudice and injustice, especially when the report influences the disciplinary decision.
The ratio decendi of the judgement is that when the inquiry officer is other than the disciplinary authority, the employee has a constitutional and statutory right to be furnished with a copy of the inquiry report before the disciplinary authority makes its decision on guilt and punishment. This right is a fundamental part of the fair hearing and natural justice, and its denial invalidates the disciplinary proceedings. Furthermore, the law laid down in this case is to be applied prospectively, meaning it governs only those cases where the order or decision is made after the judgement, and does not affect past final orders or pending proceedings that were initiated prior to this ruling.
Judgment
SAWANT, J. (for himself and for M. N. Venkatachaliah, C.J.I. and S. Mohan and B. P. Jeevan Reddy, JJ.):- This group of matters is at the instance of various parties, viz., Union of India, Public Sector Corporations, Public Sector Banks, State Governments and two private parties. By an order dated 5th August, 1991 in Managing Director, Electronic Corporation of India v. B. Karunakar (1992) 3 JT (SC) 605, a three Judge Bench of this Court referred that matter to the Chief Justice for being placed before a larger Bench, for the Bench found a conflict in the two decisions of this Court, viz., Kailash Chander Asthana v. State of U. P. (1988) 3 SCC 600 and Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (1991) 1 SCC 588 both delivered by the Benches of three learned Judges. Civil Appeal No. 3056 of 1991 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 12103 of 1991 along with the other matters in which the same question of law is in issue, has, therefore, been referred to this Bench.
2. The basic question of law which arises in these matters is whether the report of the Inquiry Officer/authority who/which is appointed by the disciplinary authority to hold an inquiry into the charges against the delinquent empl
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
