STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

V.B. H!REGOWDAR

JULY 19, 1996

[DR. A.S. ANAND AND KT. THOMAS, .TJ.)

Se1vice Law-Depa1tme11tal enquil)--Non supply of enquily repo1t to delinquent employee-Effect 011 punishme11t--Govemment of Ka1c nataka-Department of Child Developme11t-Employee-Charge of i1c regularities in the release of Governme11t fu11ds-lnqui1y-Reductio11 i11 ra11k-{)rder dated 10th Ap1i/ 1991>-Cha/le11ge before T1ibunal-Ground that as the i11quil)' report was not furnished to employee punishment was vitiated-Tribunal holdi11g that in view of the judgment in Ramzan Khan's case punishment imposed on respo11dent stood vitiated-Appeal by State--He/d approach adopted by Tribu11al was improper-Held, ntle laid _ down in Rantzan Khan's case on 20th Noventber, 1990 was prospective-No order of Punishment made before that was to be tested on the basis of law laid down in Ranizan Khan's case-Punislunent on respondent iniposed nzuch before the judgntent in Ran1zan Khan's case was delivered-Law laid down i11 that case was i11applicab/e-lmpug11ed order of T1ib1mal set aside.

*Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Kha11, (1991] 1 SCC 588; Ra11gaswamaiah's case CA No. 4220 of 1992 decided by Supreme Court on 12th October, 1992 and State of Kamat aka and Anr. v. Dr. M.

Sathyanarayana Shetty Special leave petition decided by Supreme Court Off' 13th May, 1992, held inapplicable.

Managing Director, ECJL, Hyderabad and Ors. v. B. Kanmakar and Ors., [1993] 4 SCC. 727, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9750 of 1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.92 of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Application No. 2241 of 1990.

M. Veerappa for the Appellant.

The following Order of the Court was delivered : 767

768 SUPRFME COURT RFl'ORTS I 19961SUPP.3 S.C.R.

A Special leave granted.

The respondent \Vho \Vas st:rving as an ofliccr of the (fovernn1ent of Karnalaka in the Department of Child Development in Bid District in the year 1982~83 faced disciplinary inquiry on charges of certain irregularities B 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 10 the April, 1990 imposed penalty uf reduction in rank upon the respondent. The respondent approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal and challenged the ordcr of the disciplinary authority. c On 28th August, 1990 the Tribunal dismissed the application on merits holding the order of disciplinary authority lo be vaild. After dismissal of the application, the respondent filed a review applicatio1; before the Tribunal wherein he contended that the ground urged by him regarding non-furnishing of the inquiry report, \Vhich ha<l vitiated the punishment D imposed upon him, was not considered by lhe Tribunal while disposing of the Original Application on 28th August, 1990. The review application was allowed on 11th November, 1.991 am! 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 E Union of I11dia v. Mohd. Ramza11 Khan, I 1991 J l SCC 588 allowed the Original Aprlication 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.

F From a perusal of the record we find that the attention of the Tribunal was drawn by the appellant to the observations in U11io11 of I11dia

u11d Othe1s v. Mohd. Ramzan Khu11, (supra) to the effect that the judgment in the said case would have only prospective application. The appellant also brought to the notice of the Tribunal another judgment of this Court in Ra11gaswamaiah's case (Civil Appeal No. 4220 of 1992 disposed of on G 12th October, 1992) wherein this Court had clarified that the judgment delivered in Ramzun Khu11's case (supra) was of prospective application and was not to apply to cases where disciplinary authority had imposed punishment on the delinquent employee earlier to 20th November, 1990, the date on \vhich the judgn1cnt in Ran1za11 Khan's case (supra) was H delivered. The Tribunal, however, "declined" to apply the said ruling and

ST/\ TE v. V.13. l-l!REGOWDAR 769

instead relied upon an order of this Court in Stale of Kama/aka and another A

v. Dr. M. Sathyanarayana Shelly, dismissing the Special Leave Petition against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Dr. M.

Sathyanarayana Shelly'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 B take into consideration that this Court in Dr. M. Sathyanarayana Shelly's case (supra) did not specifically deal with the question whether the judgn1cnt in Ra111zan Khan's case (supra} \Vas to operate retrospectively or prospectively. The Tribunal it appears to us laboured hard to grant relief to the respondent ignoring the la\V laid do\:vn in Ran1zlln 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 !Gum's case (supra) on 20th Novemc

ber, 1990 that non-furnishing of the copy of the inquiry report to a delinquent employee would render the final order void is only applicable D

pro.'>JJectivcly after t.he <late of the decision in Ran1zan Khan's C<tsc (supra).

Hence, no order of punishn1cnt passed on a <lelinquent c1nployec before 20th November, 1990 is challengable on the basis of' the judgment in

Ran1zan Khan'.\' case (supra) and proceedings in such cases arc to be decided on the basis of the law as it existed prior to the decision in Ramzun E Khan's case (supra), except in cases \Vhere 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. ECIT, Hyderabad a11d Others v. B. Ka11t11akar a11d Otl!Cls, [1993] 4 SCC 727 while affirming the ju<lg1nent in Ra111zan Kl1an 1s case (supra) has set the controversy at rest an<l categorically laid down that the judgment in Ra111zan Klza11 's 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 la\v laid do\Vn in Ranizan Khan's case (supra).

In the instant case, the order of the disciplinary authority punishing

Lhc respondent was passed on 10th April, 1990, much before the date of judgn1cnt in Ran1zan Klza11 1s case \Vas delivered. The la\v laid down in Ran1za11 Khan's case \Vas delivered. The law laid do\vn in Ranizan Kl1a11 1s H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A case (supra), 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's case (supra) retrospectively.

Consequently, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned B 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.

T.N.A.

Appeal allowed.