RBE No. 48/1992: Inquiry Report – Supply of Copy
No.E(D&A)87 RG6-151, dated 27.03.1992
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 No. dated 15.02.1991 (RBE No. 31/1991) on the above subject.
2. The Supreme Court in judgment dated 06.03.1991 in the matter of S.P. Vishwanathan (I) v. UOI and others [1991-Supp (2) SCC 269] have held that the judgment of the Mohd. Ramzan Khan’s case [JT 1990 (4) SC 456] [1991 (1) SLJ 196 (SC)] is given prospective effect and that it will not affect the orders passed prior to the rendering of that judgment (i.e. 20.11.1990). A copy of the judgment dated 06.03.1991 is enclosed.
3. The observation of the Supreme Court in judgment dated 06.03.1991 may be made use of in contesting the cases pending before various Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal wherein the delinquent employee have sought relief on the basis of the Mohd. Ramzan Ramzan Khan judgment. In cases where the CATs have already decided the employee’s application relying upon the Ramzan Khan’s judgment dated 20.11.1990, the feasibility of filing Review Application may be examined in consultation with your Law Officer. The cases where special leave petitions have already been filed against judgments of the CAT involving question of non-furnishing of inquiry report to the delinquent employees before imposition of penalties, the Central Agency Section Ministry of Law, New Delhi may please be consulted immediately for incorporating the Supreme Court judgment dated 06.03.1991 in the grounds for SLP.
Supreme Court of India
WP No.145 of 1989
S.P. Vishwanathan (I) v. UOI and others
Decided on March 6, 1991
Before K.N.Singh and P.B.Sawant, JJ
ORDER
1. By This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner has claimed the relief for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of termination dated December 6, 1989.
2. The petitioner was a Railway employee posted as Commercial Clerk. Charges of misconduct where framed against him and inquiry was held but he did not appear at the inquiry. Pursuant to the inquiry report the disciplinary authority terminated his services. Hence this petition.
3. Learnt counsel for the petitioner urged that since a copy of the inquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner the order of termination is vitiated. He placed Reliance on the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan’, [1991 (1) SLJ 196 (SC)]. It is true that this Court has held that if enquiry report is not supplied to the delinquent employee before passing the order of punishment, the order would be rendered illegal. But the decision of this Court is given a prospective effect it will not affect the orders passed prior to the date of rendering of judgment (November 20, 1990) as would be clear from para 17 of the judgment.
4. As regards other questions raised in the petition we find no merit in the same. We, accordingly, dismissed the petition. There will be no order as to costs.
Download Railway Board Circular RBE No. 48/1992
Forward reference ⇒ RBE No.