2008 (7) TMI 967 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the High Court was right in setting aside the order of punishment merely on the ground of non-supply of report of the Inquiry Officer to the delinquent?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-supply of Inquiry Officer's report.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Prejudice to the delinquent employee due to non-supply of the report.
4. Applicability of the precedent set by B. Karunakar.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-supply of Inquiry Officer's Report:
The core issue in this case is whether the non-supply of the Inquiry Officer's report to the delinquent employee before the Disciplinary Authority made its decision constitutes a violation of natural justice. The Supreme Court emphasized that the delinquent employee has a right to receive the Inquiry Officer's report before the Disciplinary Authority concludes on the employee's guilt or innocence. This right is integral to the employee's ability to defend against the charges, and its denial breaches the principles of natural justice.

2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The Court reiterated that the principles of natural justice, particularly the rule of *audi alteram partem* ("hear the other side"), require that adverse material, such as the Inquiry Officer's report, be supplied to the delinquent employee. The failure to do so constitutes a breach of natural justice. However, the Court also noted that the concept of natural justice is not rigid and must be applied flexibly, depending on the circumstances of each case.

3. Prejudice to the Delinquent Employee Due to Non-supply of the Report:
The Court highlighted that non-supply of the Inquiry Officer's report does not automatically nullify the disciplinary proceedings or the punishment imposed. The delinquent employee must demonstrate that the non-supply of the report caused prejudice and resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The Court emphasized that it is not sufficient to merely allege a breach of natural justice; the employee must show how the breach adversely affected their case.

4. Applicability of the Precedent Set by B. Karunakar:
The judgment extensively referenced the Constitution Bench decision in *B. Karunakar*, which established that non-supply of the Inquiry Officer's report is a breach of natural justice but does not automatically invalidate the disciplinary proceedings. The delinquent employee must prove that the non-supply caused prejudice. The Supreme Court in the present case found that the High Court had incorrectly applied this precedent by assuming prejudice without requiring the delinquent employee to demonstrate it.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in setting aside the order of punishment solely on the grounds of non-supply of the Inquiry Officer's report without assessing whether the delinquent employee had suffered any prejudice. The matter was remitted to the High Court to determine if the non-supply of the report had caused prejudice to the delinquent employee. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was set aside, with no order as to costs.