1993 (10) TMI 310 - SC - Indian Laws

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 employee, is required to be furnished to the employee to enable him to make proper representation to the disciplinary authority before such authority arrives at its own finding with regard to the guilt or otherwise of the employee and the punishment? Held that - Placing reliance on the existing law till date of Ramzan Khan, the employers treated that under law they had no obligation to supply a copy of the enquiry report before imposing the penalty. Reversing the orders and directing to proceed from that stage would be a needless heavy burden on the administration and at times encourage the delinquent to abuse the office till final orders are passed. Accordingly I hold that the ratio in Mohd. Ramzan Khan s case would apply prospectively from the date of the judgment only to the cases in which decisions are taken and orders made from the date and does not apply to all the matters which either have become final or are pending decision at the appellate forum or in the High Court or the Tribunal or in this Court.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the report of the Inquiry Officer must be furnished to the delinquent employee.
2. Whether the report should be furnished even if statutory rules are silent or against it.
3. Whether the report is required for punishments other than dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank.
4. Whether the obligation to furnish the report exists only if the employee asks for it.
5. Whether the law laid down in Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case applies to all establishments.
6. The effect of non-furnishing of the report on the order of punishment and the relief to be granted.
7. From what date the law requiring furnishing of the report should come into operation and the prevailing law before 20th November 1990.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Furnishing of Inquiry Officer's Report:
The Supreme Court examined whether the report of the Inquiry Officer, who is appointed by the disciplinary authority to hold an inquiry into the charges against a delinquent employee, must be furnished to the employee to enable him to make a proper representation before the disciplinary authority arrives at its own finding. 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 conclusions with regard to the guilt or innocence of the employee. This right is a part of the employee's right to defend himself against the charges leveled against him. A denial of the Inquiry Officer's report before the disciplinary authority takes its decision on the charges is a denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee to prove his innocence and is a breach of the principles of natural justice.

2. Report Furnishing Despite Statutory Silence or Opposition:
The Court held that since the denial of the report of the Inquiry Officer is a denial of reasonable opportunity and a breach of the principles of natural justice, any statutory rules that deny the report to the employee are against the principles of natural justice and, therefore, invalid. The delinquent employee will be entitled to a copy of the report even if the statutory rules do not permit the furnishing of the report or are silent on the subject.

3. Applicability to Lesser Punishments:
Article 311(2) of the Constitution makes it obligatory to hold an inquiry before the employee is dismissed, removed, or reduced in rank. The Court clarified that the Article cannot be construed to mean that it prevents or prohibits the inquiry when punishment other than that of dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank is awarded. Whenever service rules contemplate an inquiry before a punishment is awarded, and when the Inquiry Officer is not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee will have the right to receive the Inquiry Officer's report notwithstanding the nature of the punishment.

4. Obligation to Furnish Report Without Employee's Request:
The Court held that since it is the right of the employee to have the report to defend himself effectively, and he would not know in advance whether the report is in his favor or against him, it will not be proper to construe his failure to ask for the report as the waiver of his right. Whether the employee asks for the report or not, the report has to be furnished to him.

5. Applicability to All Establishments:
The Court held that the law laid down in Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case should apply to employees in all establishments whether Government or non-Government, public or private. This will be the case whether there are rules governing the disciplinary proceeding or not and whether they expressly prohibit the furnishing of the copy of the report or are silent on the subject. Whether the nature of punishment, whenever the rules require an inquiry to be held, for inflicting the punishment in question, the delinquent employee should have the benefit of the report of the Inquiry Officer before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges leveled against him.

6. Effect of Non-Furnishing of Report and Relief:
The Court stated that when the Inquiry Officer's report is not furnished to the delinquent employee in the disciplinary proceedings, the Courts and Tribunals should cause the copy of the report to be furnished to the aggrieved employee if he has not already secured it before coming to the Court/Tribunal, and give the employee an opportunity to show how his or her case was prejudiced because of the non-supply of the report. If after hearing the parties, the Court/Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the non-supply of the report would have made no difference to the ultimate findings and the punishment given, the Court/Tribunal should not interfere with the order of punishment. If the Court/Tribunal finds that the furnishing of the report would have made a difference to the result in the case, it should set aside the order of punishment. The proper relief that should be granted is to direct reinstatement of the employee with liberty to the authority/management to proceed with the inquiry, by placing the employee under suspension and continuing the inquiry from the stage of furnishing him with the report.

7. Date of Operation and Prevailing Law:
The Court held that the law laid down in Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case should have prospective application and the punishment which is already imposed shall not be open to challenge on that ground. The law laid down there shall apply to orders of punishment passed after 20th November 1990, the day on which the said decision was delivered. The proceedings pending in courts/tribunals in respect of orders of punishment passed prior to 20th November 1990 will have to be decided according to the law that prevailed prior to the said date, which did not require the authority to supply a copy of the Inquiry Officer's report to the employee.

← Previous Next →