ENQUIRY REPORT
SATISH KUMAR
(Querist) 23 February 2010
This query is : Resolved
Sir, i need immediately SC rulings which overruled the case UNION OF INDIA Vs. MOHD. RAMZAN KHAN ,AIR 1991 SC 471.
Binod Kumar Mishra
(Expert) 23 February 2010
VI. D E C I S I O N S
(340)
Inquiry report — furnishing copy
Necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to furnish copy of report of Inquiry Officer to Charged Officer and give him an opportunity to make a representation against it before taking a decision on the charges.
Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan,
1991(1) SLR SC 159 : AIR 1991 SC 471
A 3-judge Bench of the Supreme Court presided over by the Chief Justice examined the question whether with the alteration of the provisions of Article 311(2) under the Forty-second Amendment of the Constitution doing away with the opportunity of showing cause against the proposed punishment, the charged officer has lost his right to be entitled to a copy of the report of inquiry in the disciplinary proceedings and observed as follows: “When the disciplinary authority himself inquires into the charges there is no occasion for submission of an inquiry report. The entire evidence—oral and documentary— along with submissions, if any, are available to him to proceed to arrive at final conclusions in the inquiry. ..... In cases where the Inquiry Officer merely transmits the records of inquiry proceedings to the disciplinary authority there is indeed no distinction to be drawn between the inquiry conducted by the disciplinary authority himself or the inquiry officer. This is so on account of the fact that there is no further material added to the record at the time of transmission to the disciplinary authority. Where, however, the Inquiry Officer furnished a report with or without proposal of punishment, the report of the Inquiry Officer does constitute an additional material which would be taken into account by the disciplinary authority in dealing with the matter. In cases where punishment is proposed, there is an assessment of the material and a tentative conclusion is reached for consideration of the disciplinary authority and that action is one where the prejudicial material against the delinquent is all the more pronounced. With the Forty-second Amendment, the delinquent officer is not associated with the disciplinary inquiry beyond the recording of evidence and the submissions made on the basis of the material to assist the Inquiry Officer to come to his conclusions. In case his conclusions are kept away from the delinquent officer and the Inquiry Officer submits his conclusions with or without recommendation as to punishment, the delinquent is precluded from knowing the contents thereof although such material is used against him by the disciplinary authority. The report is an adverse material if the Inquiry Officer records a finding of guilt and proposes a punishment as far as the delinquent is concerned. In a quasi-judicial matter, if the delinquent is being deprived of knowledge of the material against him though the same is made available to the punishing authority in the matter of reaching his conclusion, rules of natural justice would be affected.â€
The Supreme Court observed that inquiries which are directly handled by the disciplinary authority and those which are allowed to be handled by the Inquiry Officer can easily be classified into two separate groups—one, where there is no inquiry report on account of the fact that the disciplinary authority is the Inquiry Officer and inquiries where there is a report on account of the fact that an officer other than the disciplinary authority has been constituted as the Inquiry Officer, and that would be a reasonable classification keeping away the application of Article 14 of the Constitution. Supreme Court held that judgments in the different High Courts and by the two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court taking the contrary view will no longer be taken to be laying down good law, “but this shall have prospective application and no punishment imposed shall be open to challenge on this groundâ€. Supreme Court also clarified that “this decision may not preclude the disciplinary authority from revising the proceeding and continuing with it in accordance with law from the stage of supply of the inquiry report in cases where dismissal or removal was the punishmentâ€.
The Supreme Court, in effect, held: “Wherever there has been an Inquiry Officer and he has furnished a report to the disciplinary authority at the conclusion of the inquiry holding the delinquent guilty of all or any of the charges with proposal for any particular punishment or not, the delinquent is entitled to a copy of such report and will also be entitled to make a representation against it, if he so desires, and non-furnishing of the report would amount to violation of rules of natural justice and make the final order liable to challenge hereafter.â€
