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

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MOHD. RAMZAN KHAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT20/11/1990

BENCH: MISRA, RANGNATH (CJ) BENCH: MISRA, RANGNATH (CJ) SAWANT, P.B. RAMASWAMY, K.

CITATION:  1991 AIR  471            1990 SCR  Supl. (3) 248  1991 SCC  (1) 588        JT 1990 (4)   456  1990 SCALE  (2)1094  CITATOR INFO :  R          1992 SC2219  (139)

ACT:     Constitution of India, 1950--Article 311(2)--Deletion of second  notice  proposing punishments mentioned  in  Article 311(2),  by  the FortySecond  Amendment--Whether  delinquent entitled  to copy of inquiry report before imposing  punish- ment--Non-supply of report--Whether violates rules of  natu- ral justice.     Constitution of India, 1950--Articles 14, 311--Supply of inquiry report in the case of the inquiry officer not  being the  disciplinary authority and non-supply of the report  in the  case  of  the inquiry officer  being  the  disciplinary authority---Whether Article 14 attracted.

HEADNOTE:     In  the civil appeals by special leave, the short  point for  determination  was whether with the alteration  of  the provisions  of Article 311(2) under the Forty-Second  Amend- ment of the Constitution doing away with the opportunity  of showing  cause against the proposed punishment,  the  delin- quent has no right to be entitled to a copy of the report of inquiry in the disciplinary proceedings. Dismissing the appeals, this Court,     HELD:  1.  The Forty-Second Amendment  has  deleted  the second  stage of the inquiry which would commence  with  the service  of a notice proposing one of the three  punishments mentioned  in Art. 311(1) and the delinquent  officer  would represent  against the same and on the basis of such  repre- sentation  and/or  oral hearing  granted,  the  disciplinary authority  decides  about the punishment. Deletion  of  this part  from  the concept of reasonable  opportunity  in  Art. 311(2) does not bring about any material change in regard to requiring  the  copy  of the report to be  provided  to  the delinquent. [255H-256C]     2. Deletion of the second opportunity from the scheme of Art.  311(2) has nothing to do with providing of a  copy  of the  report  to the delinquent in the matter of  making  his ï7 3 in Art. 311(2) has been abolished by amend-

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

249 ment, the delinquent is still entitled to represent  against the  conclusion  of  the Inquiry Officer  holding  that  the charges  or some of the charges are established and  holding the  delinquent guilty of such charges. For doing away  with the effect of the enquiry report or to meet the  recommenda- tions of the Inquiry Officer in the matter of imposition  of punishment,  furnishing a copy of the report becomes  neces- sary  and  to have the proceeding completed  by  using  some material behind the back of the delinquent is a position not countenanced by fair procedure. [257C-F]     3. While by law application of natural justice could  be totally  ruled out or truncated, nothing has been done  here which  could be taken as keeping natural justice out of  the proceedings  and the series of pronouncements of this  Court making  rules of natural justice applicable to such  an  in- quiry  are not affected by the 42nd Amendment. Supply  of  a copy  of the inquiry report along with  recommendations,  if any,  in the matter of proposed punishment to  be  inflicted would be within the rules of natural justice and the  delin- quent would, therefore, be entitled to the supply of a  copy thereof.  The Forty-Second Amendment has not  brought  about any change in this position. [257E-H]     4.  Where  the  disciplinary authority  is  the  Inquiry Officer  there is no report. He becomes the first  assessing authority to consider the evidence directly for finding  out whether the delinquent in guilty and liable to be  punished. Even otherwise, the 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 discipli- nary authority has been constituted as the Inquiry  Officer. [258A-C]     5. 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  representa- tion 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. [258E-G]  Ã¯73 80; R. Venkata Rao v. Secretary of State for India, 64 IA 55;  High Commis- 250 sionerror  India v. LM. Lall, 75 IA 225; Secretary of  State for India v. I.M. Lall, [1945] FCR 103; State of Maharashtra v. Paishankar Avalram Joshi & Anr., [1969] 3 SCR 917;  Avtar Singh  v.  Inspector General, SLR (1968) SC  131;  Union  of India  v.  H.C.  Goel, [1964] 4 SCR 718;  State  of  Gujarat v.R.G.  Teredesai  & Anr., [1970] 1 SCR 251;  Uttar  Pradesh Government v. Sabir Hussain, [1975] Suppl. SCR 354; Mazharul Islam  Hashmi  v. State of U.P. & Anr., [1979]  4  SCC  537, referred to. Prof. Wade on Administrative Law, referred to.

JUDGMENT:

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