State
of Karnataka & Ors Vs. V.B. Hiregowdar
[1996] INSC 829 (19
July 1996)
Anand,
A.S. (J) Anand, A.S. (J) Thomas K.T. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCALE (5)673
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
Special
leave granted.
The
respondent who was serving as an officer of the Government of Karnataka in the
Department of Child Development in Bid District in the year 1982-83 faced
disciplinary inquiry on charges of certain irregularities in the release of
Government funds. The Inquiry Officer, who conducted the inquiry found the
respondent guilty of the charges framed against him. The disciplinary authority
accepted the report of the Inquiry Officer and by its order dated 10th April, 1990 imposed penalty of reduction in
rank upon the respondent. The respondent approached the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal and challenged the order af the disciplinary authority.
On 28th August. 1990 the Tribunal dismissed the application on merits holding
the order of the disciplinary authority to be valid. After dismissal of the
application, the respondent filed a review application before the Tribunal
wherein he contended that the ground urged by him regarding non-furnishing of
the inquiry report, which had vitiated the punishment imposed upon him, was not
considered by the Tribunal while disposing of the Original Application on 28th August, 1990. the review application was allowed
on 11th November, 1991 and the order dated 28th August, 1990 was recalled. the application was
put up for fresh hearing., By its order dated 18th November, 1992, the Mohd. Ramzan Khan [ (1991) 1 SCC, 588 ] allowed
the Original Application holding that the order of punishment stood vitiated on
account of non supply of the copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer to the
applicant. It is that order which has been put in issue in this appeal.
From a
perusal of the record we find that the attention of the Tribunal was drawn by
the appellant to the observations in Union of India and Others vs. Mohd. Ramzan
Khan (supra) to the effect that the judgment in the said case would have only
prospective application. The appellant also brought to the notice of the
Tribunal another judgment of this Court in Rangaswamaiah's case (Civil Appeal
No. 4220 of 1992 disposed of on 12th October, 1992) wherein this Court had
clarified that the judgment delivered in Ramzan Khan's case (supra) was of
prospective application and was not to apply to cases where disciplinary
authority had imposed punishment en the delinquent employee earlier to 20th
November, 1990, the date on which the judgment in Ramzan Khan's case (supra)
was delivered. The Tribunal, however, "declined" to apply the said
ruling and instead relied upon an order of this Court in State of Karnataka and another VS Dr. M.Sathyanarayana
Shetty dismissing the Special Leave Petition on 13th May, 1992. The Tribunal observed that since the Special Leave
Petition against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Dr.M. Sathyanarayana
Shetty's case (supra) had been dismissed, it followed that the non-furnishing
of copy of the inquiry report vitiated the punishment imposed by the
disciplinary authority. The Tribunal apparently failed to take into
consideration that this Court in Dr M. Sathyanarayan Shetty's case (supra) did
not specifically deal with the question whether the judgment in Ramzan Khan's
case (supra) was to operate retrospectively or prospectively. The Tribunal it
appears to us laboured hard to grant relief to the respondent ignoring the law
laid down in Ramzan Khan's case (supra) itself as also in Rangaswamaiah's case
(supra). The approach adopted by the Tribunal, to say the least, was improper.
The
rule laid down in Ramzan Khan's case (supra) on 20th November, 1990 that
non-furnishing of the copy of the inquiry report to a delinquent employee would
render the final order void is only applicable prospectively after the date of
the decision in Ramzan Khan's case (supra). Hence, no order of punishment
passed on a delinquent employee before 20th November 1990 is challengeable on
the basis of the judgment in Ramzan Khan's case (supra) and proceedings in such
cases are to be decided on the basis of the law as it existed prior to the
decision in Ramzan Khan's case (supra) except in cases where the service rules
themselves provide for supply of copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer to
the delinquent employee before imposing punishment.
A
Constitution Bench of this Court in Managing Director (1993) 4 SCC 727] while
affirming the judgment in Ramzan Khan's case (supra) has set the controversy at
rest and categorically laid down that the judgment in Ramzan Kham' case (supra)
is of prospective application only and that no order of punishment made before
20th November, 1990 was to be tested on the basis of the law laid down in Ramzan
Khan's case (supra).
In the
instant case, the order of the disciplinary authority punishing the respondent
was passed on 10th
April, 1990, much
before the date of judgment in Ramzan Khan's case was delivered. The law laid
down in Ramzan Khan's case ( supra ) the therefore, had no application to the
fact situation in the present case. The order of the Tribunal, therefore,
cannot be sustained since it applied the law laid down in Ramzan Khan'case
(supra) retrospectively.
Consequently,
this appeal succeeds and is allowed The impugned order of the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal is hereby set aside. Since, the respondent inspite of
being served twice has chosen to remain absent, there will be no order as to
costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2