Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Others v. B. Karunakar and Others
"An employee is entitled to a copy of the inquiry officer's report before the disciplinary authority decides on guilt, as part of the reasonable opportunity to defend and of natural justice, whatever the service rules say; but non-supply vitiates the punishment only where it has caused prejudice, and the inquiry may then resume from that stage."
Issues Before the Court
- (i)
Whether, where the inquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee is entitled to a copy of the inquiry officer's report before the disciplinary authority decides whether the charges are proved, even after the Forty-second Amendment removed the second opportunity to show cause against the proposed penalty?
- (ii)
Whether that right applies where the service rules are silent or forbid supply of the report, to all kinds of establishments and penalties, and from what date?
- (iii)
What is the effect on the order of punishment if the report is not supplied?
Law & Rules Applicable
- (i)
Constitution of India, Article 311(2), as amended by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 (reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of the charges).
- (ii)
The principles of natural justice, as applied in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan.
Application to Facts & Circumstances
In Mohd. Ramzan Khan, decided on 20 November 1990, a three-judge Bench had held that an employee must be given a copy of the inquiry officer's report before the disciplinary authority records its findings. Conflicting views on the scope of that decision led to a reference to a Constitution Bench.
Writing for the majority, Sawant J. held that when the inquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, the employee has a right to a copy of the inquiry officer's report before the disciplinary authority reaches its conclusions on guilt. The report is material on which the disciplinary authority acts, and denying the employee an opportunity to answer it denies him a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The Forty-second Amendment removed only the opportunity to object to the proposed penalty, not this right.
The right applies whether or not the rules provide for it, and even if they forbid it; it extends to employees of all establishments, government or non-government, public or private, and to all penalties. The law was to apply prospectively, from 20 November 1990, so that no punishment imposed before that date could be challenged on this ground.
Non-supply of the report does not automatically invalidate the punishment. The court or tribunal must examine whether the employee was prejudiced; if the report would have made no difference to the result, interference would be a mere formality. Where prejudice is shown, the punishment is set aside and the employee reinstated, with liberty to the authority to place him under suspension and continue the inquiry from the stage of furnishing the report; back wages depend on the outcome.
K. Ramaswamy J. delivered a separate opinion, agreeing in part with the majority.
Conclusion & Ruling
- (i)
Where the inquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, the employee must be given a copy of the inquiry report before the disciplinary authority decides on guilt, in every establishment and whatever the rules provide, for orders passed on or after 20 November 1990.
- (ii)
Failure to supply the report vitiates the punishment only if the employee shows prejudice; courts and tribunals must not interfere mechanically.
- (iii)
Where the punishment is set aside on this ground, the inquiry may resume from the stage of supplying the report, and the question of back wages is decided according to its outcome.
Authorities Cited
Full texts open on Indian Kanoon in a new tab.
- Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588 : AIR 1991 SC 471Full text of Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan on Indian Kanoon