RBE No. 33/1991: Inquiry Report – Supply of Copy to CO
No.E(D&A)87 RG6-151, dated 15.02.1991
Sub: Rule 10 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 – Supply of copy of the Inquiry Report to the charged Railway servant before final orders are passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
1. Attention is invited to Board’s letter of even number dated 10.11.1989 DDE(R)II on the above subject
2. A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court consisting of the Chief Justice and two other judges have since delivered the judgment on 20.11.1990 on the Western Railway’s appeal in the case of Premnath K. Sharma referred to in Para 2 of the aforesaid letter. Certain relevant portions of the judgment are reproduced below:
“There have been several occasions in different High Courts 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 different 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 for a larger bench of this Court taking this view. Therefore, the conclusion to the contrary reached by any two judge Bench 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.
We make it clear that 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 representation 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.”
It will be seen from the above observations that the Supreme Court have ruled that the procedure laid down in the second paragraph of their observations quoted above shall only have prospective application and no punishment imposed earlier shall be open to challenge on this ground.
3. In the case of one Philips v. Director General, Ordnance Factory, the same question was decided by CAT/Madras (extracts of the relevant portion of the judgment enclosed) in their judgment delivered in Feb. 1990. The CAT/Madras had ruled in the judgment that procedure as mentioned in the second paragraph of the observations of the Supreme Court quoted above may be held to be binding only from the date of judgment of CAT in Premnath K. Sharma’s case i.e. 06.11.1987 and not to earlier cases.
4. Pending SLPs in Supreme Court may have to be got disposed of to our advantage by making use of the observations of the Supreme Court and CAT/Madras as may be applicable to the circumstances of each case. Same line of defence may be taken in pending or future cases before the various benches of the CAT.
Extracts of the judgment dated 15.02.1990 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in OA No.658/1988
Filed by A. Philip – [1990(2) SLJ (CAT) 631]
“8. The last ground of attack is that the copy of enquiry report was not communicated to the delinquent officer before the disciplinary authority decided to impose the penalty. Reliance was placed in this connection on the decision of the Full Bench of this Tribunal in Premnath K. Sharma v. Union of India & Others in which it was held that the copy of the inquiry report by the Inquiry Officer must be given to the delinquent officer, before imposing the penalty. It is submitted by the learnt counsel for the respondent that an appeal is pending before the Supreme Court against that judgment and that however, no stay has been obtained. In this predicament the ruling of the Full Bench has to be given effect to. However, the question arises as to what should be the date from which decision will have the force of law. When a decision or ruling of a Court is in the nature of interpretation of any provision of the Constitution, Act, or Rule, that ruling will necessarily have effect from the date of the legal provision interpreted. But, when a judicial pronouncement is in the nature of a fresh Rule elaborated by a Court in the interest of justice, it can have effect only from the date of the judicial pronouncement. Its effect will be only prospective and retrospective like any other new rule of law emanating from the Parliament or the Executive.
9. As far as the disciplinary proceedings are concerned, the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965, enumerate step by step, how the inquiry preceding should be conducted from the beginning till the imposition of the penalty. Those rules do not contain any provision enjoying the disciplinary authority to furnish a copy of the report prior to penalty. Till the advent of the Full Bench decision no disciplinary authority was aware that such a requirement existed. The decision of the Tribunal in this connection is not in the nature of interpretation but in the nature of a fresh rule. Further the fact of giving retrospective effect to that requirement would entail the wholesale invalidation of all disciplinary actions otherwise conducted in conformity with known rules. Such a course would be against the basic principles of the administration of justice. Therefore, the requirement of prior communication of the inquiry report would not apply to penalties imposed prior to the Full Bench decision, like the present one. This contention also fails.
10. The last contention is that the punishment is disproportionate to the misconduct. First of all, this Tribunal interfere in the matter of punishment only if victimization has been shown and if the punishment is grossly disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct. In this case, no ill-will on the part of the authorities involved in the process of the disciplinary action has been shown; further taking into account the nature of the establishment in which the applicant was working and the nature of the misconduct, which has been proved against the applicant, we do not find that the punishment is disproportionate. In the result the application is dismissed.”
Download Railway Board Circular RBE No.33/1991
Forward reference ⇒ RBE No.