9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the alteration of Art. 311(2) under the Forty-second Amendment of the Constitution affects the delinquent's right to a copy of the inquiry report in disciplinary proceedings. 2. The impact of non-supply of the inquiry report on the punishment imposed. 3. The application of natural justice principles in disciplinary inquiries post the Forty-second Amendment. 4. The classification of cases where the disciplinary authority is also the Inquiry Officer versus cases where they are separate entities. Summary: Issue 1: Alteration of Art. 311(2) and Right to Inquiry Report The core issue is whether the Forty-second Amendment, which removed the opportunity to show cause against proposed punishment, affects the delinquent's right to a copy of the inquiry report. Originally, Art. 311(2) provided that no person shall be dismissed or removed until given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed action. The Fifteenth Amendment modified this to include a reasonable opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed. The Forty-second Amendment further altered this by removing the necessity of giving an opportunity to make representation on the proposed penalty, thus changing the procedural safeguards. Issue 2: Non-Supply of Inquiry Report and Punishment The Court examined whether non-supply of the inquiry report violates the guarantee of 'reasonable opportunity.' Previous judgments, such as in Khem Chand v. Union of India and Union of India v. H.C. Goel, established that a delinquent must be given two opportunities: to defend against charges and to make representations on the proposed punishment. The Court held that the Forty-second Amendment's deletion of the second stage does not materially change the requirement to provide the inquiry report, as it remains essential for the delinquent to make an informed representation. Issue 3: Natural Justice Principles Post Forty-second Amendment The Court emphasized that disciplinary inquiries are quasi-judicial and must adhere to natural justice principles. The delinquent must be informed of the charges and given a fair hearing. The Inquiry Officer's report, especially if it includes recommendations on punishment, constitutes adverse material that must be disclosed to the delinquent to ensure a fair procedure. The Court cited Prof. Wade's assertion that natural justice principles are integral to fair administrative procedures unless explicitly excluded by legislation. Issue 4: Classification of Cases Based on Inquiry Officer's Role The Court addressed the argument based on Art. 14, stating that there is a reasonable classification between cases where the disciplinary authority is also the Inquiry Officer and those where they are separate. In the former, no separate report exists, while in the latter, the report is an additional material that must be disclosed to the delinquent. This classification does not violate the equality principle under Art. 14. Conclusion: The Court concluded that the Forty-second Amendment does not negate the requirement to supply a copy of the inquiry report to the delinquent. Non-supply of the report violates natural justice principles and makes the final order liable to challenge. The judgment has prospective application, and any disciplinary action taken without furnishing the inquiry report is set aside. The disciplinary authority may revise and continue proceedings from the stage of supplying the inquiry report. Appeals allowed.
|
