PUSHKARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, a police constable was proceeded with departmental action for major penalty and was imposed with punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect. It was alleged in the charge sheet that on 27.09.1989, the delinquent police constable while on sentry duty in Kodakara police station from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. hired an autoriksha driven by one Shaji and reached Vattekadu from where he seized some spurious liquor possessed by one Subran and the said Subran was released without registering a case and asked to come to the station next day.

(2.) After conducting an enquiry, the appellant was imposed with a punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect. It was affirmed by the Appellate Authority. In review petition also punishment was upheld. The learned Single Judge found that the enquiry was conducted fairly and no grounds were made out to interfere in the punishment. In fact, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the authorities if at all erred, have only erred in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) It is contended that punishment is liable to be set aside as copy of the enquiry report was not served on him before imposing punishment. Punishment imposed on him is only a minor punishment. It is true that in Union of India and Ors. v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (1991 (1) LLJ 29 SC) while considering the case of termination of service and the scope of Article 311, the Supreme Court held that if enquiry is held by an officer other than the disciplinary authority, copy of the enquiry report should be furnished to the employee and only after getting his representation, punishment can be imposed. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Managing Director, E.C.I.L. v. B. Karunakar after evaluating all the cases held that the right of the employee to receive the report of the enquiry officer is a part of "reasonable opportunity" to defend himself. But the Court also held that Court in all cases need not interfere with the punishment imposed for not furnishing a copy of the enquiry report. But if the Court is satisfied that prejudice is caused, Court shall set aside the order. The Court held as follows: