http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: V.B. HIREGOWDAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       19/07/1996

BENCH: ANAND, A.S. (J) BENCH: ANAND, A.S. (J) THOMAS K.T. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCALE  (5)673

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Special leave granted.      The respondent  who was  serving as  an officer  of the Government  of   Karnataka  in   the  Department   of  Child Development in  Bid  District  in  the  year  1982-83  faced disciplinary inquiry on charges of certain irregularities in the release  of Government  funds. The  Inquiry Officer, who conducted the  inquiry found  the respondent  guilty of  the charges  framed  against  him.  The  disciplinary  authority accepted the  report of the Inquiry Officer and by its order dated 10th  April, 1990 imposed penalty of reduction in rank upon the respondent. The respondent approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal  and challenged  the  order  af  the disciplinary authority.  On 28th  August. 1990  the Tribunal dismissed the application on merits holding the order of the disciplinary authority  to be  valid. After dismissal of the application,  the  respondent  filed  a  review  application before the  Tribunal wherein  he contended  that the  ground urged by him regarding non-furnishing of the inquiry report, which had  vitiated the punishment imposed upon him, was not considered by  the Tribunal  while disposing of the Original Application on 28th August, 1990. the review application was allowed on  11th November,  1991 and  the order  dated  28th August, 1990  was recalled.  the application  was put up for fresh hearing.,  By its order dated 18th November, 1992, the Tribunal relying  upon the  judgment in  Union of  India Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan [ (1991) 1 SCC, 588 ] allowed the Original Application holding  that  the  order  of  punishment  stood vitiated on  account of non supply of the copy of the report of the  Enquiry Officer  to the  applicant. It is that order which has been put in issue in this appeal.      From a perusal of the record we find that the attention of  the   Tribunal  was   drawn  by  the  appellant  to  the observations in  Union of  India and Others vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (supra)  to the  effect that  the judgment  in the said case would  have only prospective application. The appellant

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

also brought  to the notice of the Tribunal another judgment of this Court in Rangaswamaiah’s case (Civil Appeal No. 4220 of 1992  disposed of  on 12th  October, 1992)  wherein  this Court had  clarified that  the judgment  delivered in Ramzan Khan’s case  (supra) was  of prospective application and was not to  apply to  cases  where  disciplinary  authority  had imposed punishment  en the  delinquent employee  earlier  to 20th November,  1990, the  date on  which  the  judgment  in Ramzan Khan’s  case (supra)  was  delivered.  The  Tribunal, however, "declined"  to apply  the said  ruling and  instead relied upon an order of this Court in State of Karnataka and another  VS   Dr.  M.Sathyanarayana  Shetty  dismissing  the Special Leave  Petition on  13th  May,  1992.  The  Tribunal observed that  since the  Special Leave Petition against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Dr.M. Sathyanarayana Shetty’s case  (supra) had  been dismissed, it followed that the non-furnishing  of copy  of the  inquiry report vitiated the punishment  imposed by  the disciplinary  authority. The Tribunal apparently  failed to  take into consideration that this Court  in Dr M. Sathyanarayan Shetty’s case (supra) did not specifically deal with the question whether the judgment in Ramzan Khan’s case (supra) was to operate retrospectively or prospectively.  The Tribunal  it appears  to us  laboured hard to grant relief to the respondent ignoring the law laid down in  Ramzan  Khan’s  case  (supra)  itself  as  also  in Rangaswamaiah’s case  (supra). The  approach adopted  by the Tribunal, to say the least, was improper.      The rule  laid down  in Ramzan  Khan’s case  (supra) on 20th November,  1990 that  non-furnishing of the copy of the inquiry report  to a  delinquent employee  would render  the final order void is only applicable prospectively  after the date of  the decision  in Ramzan Khan’s case (supra). Hence, no order  of punishment  passed  on  a  delinquent  employee before 20th  November 1990  is challengeable on the basis of the judgment  in Ramzan  Khan’s case (supra) and proceedings in such  cases are  to be decided on the basis of the law as it existed  prior to  the decision  in  Ramzan  Khan’s  case (supra) except  in cases  where the service rules themselves provide for  supply of  copy of  the report  of the  Inquiry Officer  to   the  delinquent   employee   before   imposing punishment.      A Constitution Bench of this Court in Managing Director ECIL, Hyderabad  and others  Vs. B.  Karunakar and  Others [ (1993) 4  SCC   727] while  affirming the judgment in Ramzan Khan’s case  (supra) has  set the  controversy at  rest  and categorically laid  down that  the judgment  in Ramzan Kham’ case (supra)  is of prospective application only and that no order of  punishment made  before 20th November, 1990 was to be tested on the basis of the law laid down in Ramzan Khan’s case (supra).      In the  instant case,  the order  of  the  disciplinary authority punishing the respondent was passed on 10th April, 1990, much before the date of judgment in Ramzan Khan’s case was delivered.  The law  laid down  in Ramzan  Khan’s case ( supra )   the  therefore, had  no application  to  the  fact situation in  the present  case. The  order of the Tribunal, therefore, cannot be sustained since it applied the law laid down in Ramzan Khan’case (supra) retrospectively.      Consequently, this appeal succeeds and is allowed The impugned  order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal is hereby  set aside. Since, the respondent inspite of being served twice  has chosen  to remain absent, there will be no order as to costs.

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