http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: C.L. VERMA

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/02/1993

BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) SAHAI, R.M. (J)

CITATION:  1994 AIR 1516            1993 SCR  (1)1044  1993 SCC  (2) 195        JT 1993 (3)   703  1993 SCALE  (1)607

ACT: Civil Services-Dismissal-Non-furnishing copy of the  enquiry report to delinquent official-Effect of-Application to cases pending  before the court on the crucial date  of  judgment- Matter referred to larger bench. Words and Phrases-"Prospectively"--Meaning of

HEADNOTE: The  respondent-employee was dismissed from service  without supplying  him a copy of the enquiry report at the  time  to hearing.   The  order  of dismissal was  challenged  in  the Central Administrative Tribunal, and the same was set  aside on  the ground that since the employee was not supplied  the copy of the enquiry report, the dismissal stood vitiated. The appellants have challenged the order of the Tribunal  in this  court.  Relying on the decision in Ramzan’s case,  the appellants  have  contended  that the  said  ruling  of  the Supreme Court holding that the delinquent should be supplied the copy of the enquiry report before dismissal should apply prespectively. Referring the matter to the Constitution Bench, this Court, HELD  :  1.  This appeal may be heard  alongwith  the  Civil Appeal  arising  out  of  the  Special  leave  petition   in Managing  Director,  Electronics  Corporation  of  India  v. Karunakar, in which a reference has already been made to the Constitution Bench. [1048D] 2.   It is not proper in the interest of justice to give any direction  of reinstatement of the respondent in service  or award of any back wages as done in B. Karunakar’s case.  the respondent  would  be Governed by an  appropriate  direction that  may  be  given at time of  the  final  decision.   The operation  of  the  impugned order in  appeal  shall  remain stayed so far as the respondent is concerned. [1048G-H] Union of India & Ors. v. Mohd Ramzan Khan, [1991] SCC 188, 1045 relied on. Managing  Director  Electronics Corporation of India  v.  B. Karunakar,  and  JT (1992) 3 SC 605 and Kailash  Asthana  v. State of UP., JT (1988) 2 SC 291, referred to.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 611 of 1993. From the Judgment and Order dated 8.8.91 of the Central  Ad- ministrative Tribunal Bombay Bench, in Original  Application No.171 of 1987. V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, R. Sasiprabhu  and Vijay Kumar Verma for the Appellants. Ms. Indira Jaising and Mukul Mudgal for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL, J. Delay condoned. Special leave granted. The  respondent  C.L.  Verma  was  an  employee  of  Western Railway,  Church Gate, Bombay, He was served with  a  charge sheet dated 30.9.1983. He was dismissed from Railway service with  effect from 29.8.1985 by the  disciplinary  authority. An  appeal  filed  by the respondent was  dismissed  by  the President   of  India  vide  order  dated   21.8.1986.   The respondent   challenged   his  dismissal  in   the   Central Administrative  Tribunal.   The Tribunal by an  order  dated 8.8.1991 set aside the order of dismissal on the ground that the  respondent  was not supplied the copy  of  the  Enquiry Officer’s  report.   The  Tribunal  placed  reliance  on   a decision of this Court in Union of India and Others v.  Mohd Ramzan Khan, [1991] 1 SCC 588.  The Tribunal considered  the effect  of  the  observations made  in  Mohd  Ramzan’s  case (supra)  that the said decision shall have  prospective  ap- plication  and  no  punishment  imposed  shall  be  open  to challenge on this ground.  The Tribunal in this regard  held that no inference can be drawn from the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramzan Khan’s case (supra) that all  the  pending  matters will also  abate.   The  Tribunal further held as under:- 1046               "Thus all the pending matters which were  open               for  adjudication and would be so  open  after               the  decision  in Ramzan Khan’s  case  (supra)               would  be adjudicated upon not  having  become               final  and would be thus within the  ambit  of               plural judgments would have prospective effect               used in Ramzan Khan’s case (supra)." The  Tribunal further clarified that this decision  may  not preclude  the  disciplinary  authority  from  reviving   the proceeding  and  continuing with it in accordance  with  law from  the  stage of supply of the enquiry  report  in  cases where dismissal or removal was the punishment. Aggrieved  against the aforesaid order, the Union  of  India has come in appeal before this Court. We  have  considered the arguments advanced by  the  learned counsel  for  the parties.  In para 17 of  the  judgment  of Mohd.  Ramzan Khan’s case (supra) it was held as under:-               "There   have   been  several   decisions   in               different  High  Court  which,  following  the               Forty-second  Amendment, have taken  the  view               that  it is no longer necessary to  furnish  a               copy  of  the  inquiry  report  to  delinquent               officers.   Even on some occasions this  Court               has taken that view.  Since we have reached  a               different conclusion the judgments in the dif-               ferent  High Courts taking the  contrary  view               must be taken to be no longer laying down good               law.  We have not been shown any decision of a               co-ordinate  or a larger bench of  this  Court               taking  this view.  Therefore, the  conclusion               to the contrary reached by any two Judge bench

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

             in this Court will also 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               ground." After the decision in Mohd.  Ramazan Khan’s case, the matter came  up for consideration again before a three Judge  Bench of  this Court in Managing Director, Electronic  Corporation of  India  v. B. Karunakar, JT (1992) 3 S.C. 605.   In  this case, notice was taken of an earlier decision of this  Court in  Kailash  Chander Asthana v. State of U.P., JT  (1988)  2 S.C. 291 = [1988] 3 SCC 600 wherein it had been observed  by a Bench of three 1047 Judges that the question of furnishing a copy of the  report of  enquiry  in disciplinary proceedings held  after  Forty- second Amendment does not arise.  This Court therefore, held that  there was seeming conflict as to the entitlement of  a copy  of  the enquiry report to the  delinquent  officer  in between  the  cases  of Kailash Chander  Asthana  and  Mohd. Ramzan Khan and as such it was considered necessary to refer this matter to a larger bench.  This Court, therefore, in B. Karunakar’s  case  (supra)  granted special  leave  on  this question  and  directed the papers to be placed  before  the Chief  Justice  for constitution of a  larger  bench.   This Court  in  B.  Karunakar’s  case  also  gave  the  following directions:-               "Since  the  matter is likely to take  a  long               time  for  desposal of the  matter,  any  stay               order would prejudicially effect the  interest               of the respondent in whose favour there is  an               order  of reinstatement with liberty  reserved               for  continuing the inquiry.   We,  therefore,               direct   that  respondent  be  reinstated   in               service  within  a month from today  with  the               payment of one half of the back wages." It has come to our notice that in several cases the view has been taken that the ratio of Mohd.  Ramzan Khan’s case shall apply  prospectively and shall not apply in the cases  where the order of dismissal was passed prior to the said decision in  Mohd  Ramzan Khan’s case.  One of such  cases  is  Civil Appeal No. 4523 of 1992 entitled Union of India & Others  v. A.K  Chatterjee,  decided on 19.10.1992 by a  Bench  of  two Judges,  of which P.B. Sawant, J. was a member and was  also one  of  the  judges in Mohd Ramzan  Khan’s  case.   In  the aforesaid case the respondent A.K. Chatterjee was  dismissed for service by order dated 6.1.1988. On appeal filed by A.K. Chatterjee,  the order was modified to the extent  that  the order  of  dismissal was reduced to removal  vide  appellate order  dated 22.2.1980. On a further revision,  the  General Manager reduced the penalty of removal of service to that of compulsory   retirement  vide  order  dated  1.8.1988.   The tribunal  vide  its judgment dated 18.2.1992 set  aside  the order  of  compulsory retirement placing  reliance  on  Mohd Ramzan  Khan’s case.  On appeal by the Union of  India  this Court  held that the Tribunal had not noticed the  operative part  of the judgment in Mohd Ramzan Khan’s case,  where  it was  made  clear  that the law laid down  there  will  apply prospectively.  It was held that admittedly in the case, the order of dismissal was passed prior to 1048 the  said decision and as such the decision of the  Tribunal was  set aside and the matter was remanded to  the  Tribunal for decision on merits of other points. It  was thus contended before us by the learned counsel  for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

the  Union of India that in Mohd Ramzan Khan’s case, it  was clearly  laid  down  that  the  said  decision  will   apply prospectively  and will not affect such orders of  dismissal which  had  been  passed  prior to  the  date  of  the  said decision.  On the other hand, it was contended on behalf  of the respondent that the aforesaid observations cannot  apply to  a  case  in which the  delinquent  officer  had  already challenged the order of dismissal before the  Administrative Tribunal  and  the observations made in Mohd  Ramzan  Khan’s case  should  only apply in such cases where  the  order  of dismissal  had become final and not in such cases where  the proceedings were pending. We,  therefore,  direct that this appeal may also  be  heard along with the Civil Appeal No. 3056 of 1991 arising out  of Special  Leave Petition No. 12103 of 1991 entitled  Managing Director,  Electronic Corporation of India v. B.  Karunakar, in   which  a  reference  has  already  been  made  to   the Constitution Bench.  Now, so far as the question of granting the stay order is concerned, in our view it should depend on the  facts and circumstances of each case.  In the  case  in hand  before us, the charge levelled against the  respondent was  of having accepted Rs. 2,000 as  illegal  gratification from  a ’Khalasi’ employed in the Workshop for  getting  him allotted a railway quarter out of turn.  The respondent  has been  found  guilty  of  the  said  charge  in  disciplinary proceedings and the order of dismissal has been set aside by the  Tribunal  only on the ground of non supply  of  enquiry report  and  following the decision in  Mohd  Ramzan  Khan’s case. Thus, taking note of the aforesaid decisions as well as  the gravity  of the charge levelled against the  respondent  and the  same  having not been set aside on merits,  we  do  not consider  it proper in the interest of justice to  give  any direction  of reinstatement of the respondent in service  or award of any back wages as done in B. Kamuakar’s case.   The respondent would be governed by an appropriate direction  to be given at the time of the final decision of the case.   It view  of the circumstances mentioned above, we  direct  that the  operation of the impugned judgment of the  Central  Ad- ministrative  Tribunal,  Bombay Bench dated  8.8.1991  shall remain stayed so 1049 far-  as  the  respondent  C.L. Verma  is  concerned.   This appeal may now be heard by the Constitution Bench along with the  appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition No.  12103 of  1991 entitled Managing Director, Electronic  Corporation of India v. B. Karunakar. J.RJ.                       Referred to Constitution Bench. 1050