Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
V.B. HIREGOWDAR
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/07/1996
BENCH:
ANAND, A.S. (J)
BENCH:
ANAND, A.S. (J)
THOMAS K.T. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCALE (5)673
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
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
Tribunal relying upon the judgment in Union of India Vs.
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
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
ECIL, Hyderabad and others Vs. B. Karunakar and Others [
(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.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3