STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. V B HIREGOWDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) The respondent who was serving as an officer of the Government of Karnataka in the Department of Child Development in Bidar 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 of 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 v. 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.

(3.) 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 v. 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 Rangaswamaiahs case (Civil Appeal No. 4220 of 1992 disposed of on 12th October, 1992) wherein this Court had clarified that the judgment delivered in Ramzan Khans case (supra) was of prospective application and was not to apply to cases where disciplinary authority had imposed punishment on the delinquent employee earlier to 20th November, 1990, the date on which the judgment in Ramzan Khans 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 v. 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 Shettys 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 apparenly failed to take into consideration that this Court in Dr. M. Sathyanarayana Shettys case (supra) did not specifically deal with the question whether the judgment in Ramzan Khans 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 Khans case (supra) itself as also in Rangaswamaiahs case (supra). The approach adopted by the Tribunal, to say the least, was improper.