STATE OF M P Vs. RAJARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior, vide its impugned order dated 6-11-1998 considering the impact of a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, 1992 MPST 5, came to the conclusion that the punishment of respondent No. 1 is liable to be set aside on the ground that he was not furnished with copy of the enquiry report and did not issue any show-cause notice before passing the final order, punishing him with a major penalty and consequently quashed the order of punishment with liberty to initiate the departmental proceedings afresh against him from the stage of issue of a regular notice after furnishing a copy of the enquiry report.

(2.) THE Hon'ble Apex Court in its Larger Bench decision in the case of Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, reported in AIR 1994 SC 1075, has observed that when the employee is dismissed or removed from service and the inquiry is set aside because the report is not furnished to him, in some cases the non-furnishing of the report may have prejudiced him gravely while in other cases it may have made no difference to the ultimate punishment awarded to him. The theory of reasonable opportunity and the principles of natural justice have been evolved to uphold the rule of law and to assist the individual to vindicate his just rights. They are not incantations to be invoked nor rites to be performed on all and sundry occasions. Whether, in fact, prejudice has been caused to the employee or not on account of the denial to him of the report, has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case. Where, therefore, even after the furnishing of the report, no different consequence would have followed, it would be a perversion of justice to permit the employee to resume duty and to get all the consequential benefits. It amounts to rewarding the dishonest and the guilty and thus to stretching the concept of justice to illogical and exasperating limits. It amounts to an 'unnatural expansion of natural justice' which in itself is antithetical to justice.

(3.) THE Hon'ble Apex Court further reiterated the same principle in the case of Union Bank of India v. Vishwa Mohan, reported in (1998) 4 SCC 310.