MADHUBHA BALDEVSINH JETHWA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This petition is filed by a dismissed S.R.P. Constable challenging the order of dismissal dated 22-5-1990 passed by the Commandant, State Reserve Police, Group 7, at Nadiad. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner who was serving as an S.R.P. Constable has proceeded on leave and after he returned from leave, he was required to collect his kit. While he was asked to collect the kit by one Shri B. T. Kamte, the Head Constable, the petitioner asked for an assistant to which the said Head Constable said to have replied that he is to attend duty at Gate Nos. 1 and 4. On this reply, the petitioner got excited and assaulted the Head Constable, B. T. Kamte. Pursuant to the said incident, a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner. The petitioner gave his reply. Thereafter, a departmental inquiry was held on conclusion of which, punishment of dismissal was imposed. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of dismissal dated 22-5-1990. The said appeal was dismissed by an order dated 25-1-1991. In the present petition, the order of dismissal is challenged on the grounds which are set out in the petition as grounds I to VII.

(2.) . The main thrust of challenge is that a copy of the inquiry officer's report ought to have been supplied to the petitioner so as to see that the petitioner is able to defend himself properly by submitting against the said report relying upon which the disciplinary authority inflicted punishment of dismissal. Shri Mishra, learned Advocate submitted that as held by the Honourable the Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, AIR 1991 SC 471, me inquiry officer's report is to be supplied to the concerned delinquent to enable him to defend against the same. It is also submitted that the petitioner was handicapped in absence of the copy of the inquiry officer's report, as in absence of that the petitioner did not know as to what had weighed with the disciplinary authority in passing of the order of dismissal. The learned Advocate placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra v. B. A. Joshi, reported in AIR 1969 SC 300. The learned Advocate submitted that the order of dismissal is illegal, arbitrary, against Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. It is also against the principle laid down by the Honourable the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. R. C. Goel, reported in AIR 1964 SC 368. Mr. Mishra next submitted that the second show-cause notice was issued by the authority which was subordinate to the appointing authority and therefore, the order is vitiated on that count also. The order is violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

(3.) . Ms. Nandini Joshi, learned A.G.P., appearing with Mr. Hasurkar, pointed out that so far as the decision in the case of Ramzan Khan (supra) is concerned the same is made applicable only prospectively as laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Managing Director, E.C.I.L. v. Karunakar, reported in 1993 (4) SCC 727. The Hon'ble the Supreme Court has laid down in categorical terms that the decision of the Apex Court in case Mohd. Ramzan Khan (supra) will be applicable prospectively, that is to say the order of punishment passed after 20-11-1990. Not only that it is further made clear that the law laid down by the aforesaid case will not be applicable to the orders of punishment passed before that date not withstanding that the proceedings arising out of the same were pending in the Courts after that date. In view of that the plea of the petitioner that on account of non-supply of the copies of the inquiry officer's report the order of dismissal is vitiated, does not survive. It is also submitted that under the rules, there was no obligation on the part of the authority to supply the inquiry officer's report. Therefore, independent of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of Ramzan Khan, under the rules, the petitioner had no right to ask for a copy of the inquiry officer's report. On that ground, the order of dismissal does not stand vitiated.