JAGAT PAL SINGH Vs. R S CHIB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is not necessary to note the facts in detail. A departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner. He stands removed from service. He challenged this order before the Appellate Authority. The appeal was dismissed. The appellate order is annexure "J" with the writ petition. This was passed on 22nd Sept., 98. The order of dismissal is being challenged on the ground that the punishing authority before imposing the punishment did not supply him with the copy of enquiry report. In this situation, it is urged that what was said by the Supreme Court of India in the case reported as AIR 1991 SC 471, Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan would be attracted. With regard to the Appellate order, it is submitted that the same is not in consonance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Chander vs. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 1173.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the respondents submits that there was absolutely no necessity to furnish the petitioner with the copy of the enquiry report. Reliance is being placed on Rule 12 of the Cantonment Fund Servant Rules, 1937 (amended). It is submitted that as there is no provision of furnishing of copy of enquiry report, therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that he should be supplied with the same. It is further submitted that the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Ramzans case (supra) was with regard to the civil servant who was governed by Article 311 of the constitution. The corresponding provision in the State of Jammu and Kashmir is section 126. It is accordingly submitted that the judgement given in Mohd. Ramzans case would not be attracted to the facts of this case.

(3.) SO far as the arguments as raised above are concerned, these are squarely answered by the Supreme Court in the case reported as Managing Director, ECIL Hyderabad vs. S. Karunakar, AIR 1994 SC 1074. It has been explicitly observed that the law laid down in Mohd. Ramzans case would apply to employees in all establishments whether Government or non -Government, public or private. This will be the case whether there are rules governing the disciplinary proceedings or not and whether they expressly prohibit the furnishing of the copy of report or are silent on the subject. Whatever the nature of punishment, further, whenever the rules require an inquiry to be held, for inflicting the punishment in question, the delinquent employee should have the benefit of the report of the Inquiry Officer before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges levelled against him.