SHASHI KANT PANDEY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ application was initially filed for quashing of order dated 15.7.1988 by virtue of which petitioner was dismissed from service, the order of dismissal was affirmed even in appeal. It is not in dispute that an enquiry was held vide a set of charges and based on the findings recorded by the enquiry officer against the petitioner the disciplinary authority in his wisdom decided to punish the petitioner by dismissal. This writ application came to be heard in admission matter itself and vide order dated 1.10.93 the writ application was allowed on the sole question that in view of the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court since a copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner the order of dismissal was an invalid order. The Court in its wisdom decided to set aside the order of punishment with a direction that the petitioner will be permitted to join, will be given a copy of the enquiry report and thereafter on the show cause by the petitioner the disciplinary authority may pass a fresh order.

(2.) THE matter did not rest here. The order of the High Court dated 1.10.93 came to be challenged by the Bank by filing a SLP. Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 21st April, 1994 set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration in the background of the decision which had been rendered in the case of Managing Director, ECIL vs. B. Karunakar reported in 1993(6) Judgment Today SC 1. It is in this background therefore the writ application is being heard afresh.

(3.) CONTENTION of Learned Counsel however for the bank in the present case is that the matter stands remanded to this Court by Hon'ble Supreme Court on a very limited issue. The issue of non -supply of copy of enquiry report in terms of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India as amended by 42nd Amendment came to be considered for the first time in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan reported [ : (1991) 1 SCC 588]. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that supply of enquiry report has to be read in a disciplinary matter as a part of right of hearing and even though there was no constitutional provisions or rules providing for the same, opportunity of hearing and the rules of natural justice required so. The issue decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramzan Khan (supra) was considered in the case of Managing Director, ECIL vs. B. Karunakar where the Court made certain distinction in the earlier decision. It held that the decision of Md. Ramzan would be prospective in nature, meaning thereby that only in such case after 20.11.1990, an enquiry is held, furnishing of an enquiry report would be a must. In so far as the proceeding which has been held earlier to the said decision merely because the enquiry report was not furnished it would not be a ground for setting aside of punishment order. The Court will have to see the prejudice which could have been caused to the petitioner by virtue of not being served a copy of the enquiry report.