Holding

The Supreme Court held that the decision in Mohd. Ramzan Khan applies prospectively and does not automatically invalidate dismissals ordered before that date, and therefore the Tribunal's order is stayed pending a Constitution Bench determination.

Summary

C.L. Verma, a Western Railway employee, was dismissed without being furnished a copy of the enquiry officer's report. He challenged the dismissal before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which set aside the dismissal on the ground that the report had not been supplied, relying on Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan. The Union appealed, arguing that the Supreme Court's ruling in Ramzan Khan was prospective and should not affect dismissals ordered before that decision. The Court examined the scope of the prospective application, noting that the dismissal order against Verma was passed after the Ramzan Khan judgment and that the proceedings were still pending. It held that the Ramzan Khan ratio applies prospectively and does not automatically mandate reinstatement or back wages in pending cases. Consequently, the Court stayed the Tribunal's order and referred the matter to a Constitution Bench for further consideration, without granting any immediate relief to the respondent.

Issues considered

Whether the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, which declared its ratio prospective, applies to disciplinary dismissals pending before the court at the time of that decision.
Whether the failure to furnish the enquiry report to the delinquent officer vitiates the dismissal order when the proceedings are not yet final.
Whether a stay of the Central Administrative Tribunal's order and reinstatement of the employee are appropriate pending a final decision.

Subjects

disciplinary proceedingsenquiry reportprospective applicationcivil service dismissalstay orderconstitutional bench

Judgment

A UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
v.
C.L. VERMA

FEBRUARY 12, 1993

B (N.M. KASLIWAL AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.]

Civil Setvice~ismissal-Non-fumishing copy of the enquiry report to
delinquent official-£ffect of-Application to cases pending before the court
on the crncial date of judgment-Matter refe"ed to l<nger bench.
c Words and Phrases--''Prospectively"-Meani11g of

The respondent-employee was dismissed from service without sup-
plying him a copy of the enquiry report at the time to hearing. The order
of dismissal was challenged in the Central Administrative Tribunal, and
D the same was set aside on the ground that since the employee was not
supplied the copy of the enquiry report, the dismissal stood vitiated.

The appellants have challenged the order of the Tribunal in this
court. Relying on the decision in Ramzan 's case, the appellants have
contended that the said ruling of the Supreme Court holding that the
E delinquent should be supplied the copy of the enquiry report before
dismissal should apply prespectlvely. 'y
Referring the matter to the Constitution Bench, this Court,

HELD : 1. This appeal may be heard alongwith the Civil Appeal
F arising out of the Special leave petition in ·Managing Director, Electronics
-
Corporation of India v. Karnnakar, in which a reference has already been
made to the Constitution Bench. [1048D)

2. It is not proper in the interest of justice to give any direction of
G reinstatement of the respondent in service or award of any back wages as
done in B. Karnnakar's case. The respondent would be Governed by an
appropriate direction that may be given at time of the final decision. The
operation of the impugned order in appeal shall remain stayed so far as
the respondent is concerned. [1048G-H]

H Union of India & Ors. v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, [1991) SCC 188,
1041
).- .
U.0.1. v. C.L. VERMA [KASLIWAL, J.] 1045

relied on. A
¥ Managing Director Electronics Corporation of India v. B. Kanmakar,
and JT (1992) 3 SC 605 and Kai/ash Asthana v. State of U.P., JT (1988) 2
SC 291, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 611 of B
1993.

~ From the Judgment and Order dated 8.8.91 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal Bombay Bench, in Original Application No.171 of
1987.
c
- V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, R. Sasiprabhu and Vijay
Kumar Verma for the Appellants.

Ms. Indira Jaising and Mukul Mudgal for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D

KASLIWAL, J. Delay condoned.

Special leave granted.

'-{ The respondent C.L. Verma was an employee of Western Railway, E
Church Gate, Bombay, He was served with a charge sheet dated 30.9.1983.
He was dismissed from Railway service with effect . from 29.8.1985 by the

- disciplinary authority. An appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed by
the President of India vide order dated 21.8.1986. The respondent chat-
lenged his dismissal in the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal F
by an order dated 8.8.1991 set aside the order of dismissal on the ground
~ that the respondent was not supplied the copy of the Enquiry Officer's
report. The Tribunal placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Union
of India and Others v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, [1991] 1 SCC 588. The
Tribunal considered the effect of the observations made in Mohd.
Ramzan's case (supra) that the said decision shall have prospective ap- G
r 1ication and no punishment imposed shall be open to challenge on this .
ground. The Tribunal in this regard held that no inference can be drawn
>- from the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramzan
Khan's case (supra) that all the pending matters will also abate. The
Tribunal further held as under:- H
1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 1 S.C.R.

A "Thus all the pending matters which were open for ad-
judication and would be so open after the decision in
Ramza11 Kha11's case (supra) would be adjudicated upon
not having become final and would be thus within the ambit
of plural judgments would have prospective effect used in
B Ramza11 Kha11's case (supra)."

The Tribunal further clarified that this decision may not preclude the
disciplinary authority from reviving the proceeding and continuing with it '>-
in accordance with law from the stage of supply of the enquiry report in
cases where dismissal or removal was the punishment.
c Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the Union of India has come
in appeal before this Court.
-
We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
for the parties. In para 17 of the judgment of Mohd. Ramza11 Kha11's case '..(
D (supra) it was held as under:-

"There have been several decisions in different High Court
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
E occasions this Court has taken that view. Since we have 'y
reached a different conclusion the judgments in the dif-
ferent 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 corrdinate or a larger bench of this
-
F 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."

G After the decicion in Mohd. Ramazal! Khall 's case, the matter came
up for consideration again before a three Judge Bench of this Court in
Managing Director, Electronic Corporation of India v. B. Kanmakar, JT
(1992) 3 S.C. 605. In this case, notice was taken of an earlier decision of ""
this Court in Kai/ash Chal!der Asthalla v. State of U.P., JT (1988) 2 S.C.
H 291 = [ 1988) 3 SCC 600 wherein it had been observed by a Bench of three
' ,..,..

U.0.1. v. C.L VERMA [KASLIWAL, J.] 1C47

Judges that the question of furnishing a copy of the report of enquiry in A
disdplinary proceedings held after Forty-second Amendment does not
y arise. This Court therefore, held that there was seeming conflict as to the·
entitlement of a copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent officer in
between the cases of Kailash Chander Asthana and Mohd. Ramzan Khan
and as such it was considered necessary to refer this matter to a larger
B
bench. This Court, therefore, in B. Kanmakar's case {supra) granted special
leave on this question and directed the papers to be placed before the
Chief Justice for constitution of a larger bench. This Court in B.
4(
Kanmakar's case also gave the following directions:-

"Since the matter is likely to take a long time for desposal c
- of the matter, any stay order would prejudicially effect the
interest of the respondent in whose favour there is an order
of reinstatement with liberty reserved for continuing the
inquiry. We, therefore, direct that respondent be reinstated
in service within a month from today with the payment of D
one half of the back wages."

It has come to our notice that in several cases the view has been taken
that the ratio of Mohd. Ramza11 Khan's case shall apply prospectively and
shall not apply in the cases where the order of dimissal was passed prior
E
'-{ to the said decision in Mohd. Ramzan Kha11's case. One of such cases is
Civil Appeal No. 4523 of 1992 entitled U11ion of !11dia & Others v. A.K
Chatterjee, decided on 19.10.1992 by a Bench of two Judges, of which P.B.
- Sawant, J. was a member and was also one of the judges in Mohd. Ramza11
Khan's case. In the aforesaid case the respondent A.K. Chatterjee was
dismissed for service by order dated 6.1.1988. On appeal filed by A.K. F
Chatterjee, the order was modified to the extent that the order of dimissal
...!._ was reduced to removal vide appellate order dated 22.2.1980. On a further
revision, the General Manager reduced the penalty of removal of senice
to that of compulsory retirement vide order dated 1.8.1988. The tribunal
vide its judgment dated 18.2.1992 set aside the order of compulsory retire- G
ment placing reliance on Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case. On appeal by the
Union of India this Court held that the Tribunal had not noticed the
>- operative part of the judgment in Mohd. Ramzan Kha11's case, where it was
made clear that the law laid down there will apply prospectively. It was
held that admittedly in the case, the order of dismissal was passed prior to H
/
"1

1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 1 S.C.R.

A the said decision and as such the decision of the Tribunal was set aside
and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for decision on merits of
other points.
v

It was thus contended before us by the learned counsel for the Union
of India that in Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case, it was clearly laid down that
B
the said decision will apply prospectively and will not affect such orders of
dismissal which had been passed prior to the date of the said decision. On
the ot!ier hand, it was contended on behalf of the respondent that the
aforesaid observations cannot apply to a case in which the delinquent >'-
officer had already challenged the order of dismissal before the Ad-
c ministrative Tribunal and the observations made in Mo/id. Ramzan Khan's
case should only apply in such cases where the order of dismissal had
become final and not in such cases where the proceedings were pending.
-
We, therefore, direct that this appeal may also be heard along with
the Civil Appeal No. 3056 of 1991 arising out of Special Leave Petition No. "(
D
12103 of 1991 entitled Managing Director, Electronic Corporation of India
v. B. Karnnakar, in which a reference has already been made to the
Constitution Bench. Now, so far as the question of granting the stay order
is concerned, in our view it should depend on the facts and circumstances
of each case. In the case in hand before us, the charge levelled against the
E
respondent was of having accepted Rs. 2,000 as illegal gratification from a 'y
'Khalasi' employed in the Workshop for getting him allotted a railway
quarter out of turn. The respondent has been found guilty of the said
charge in disciplinary proceedings and the order of dismissal has been set
aside by the Tribunal only on the ground of non supply of enquiry report
-
F and following the decision in Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case.
...._
Thus, taking note of the aforesaid decisions as well as the gravity of
the charge levelled against the· respondent and the same having not been
set aside on merits, we do not consider it proper in the interest of justice
G to give any direction of reinstatement of the respondent in service or award
of any back wages as done in B. Kamuakar's case. The respondent would
be governed by an appropriate direction to be given at the time of the final
decision of the case. It view of the circumstances mentioned above, we
direct that the operation of the impugned judgment of the Central Ad-
H ministrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench dated 8.8.1991 shall remain stayed so
U.0.1. v. C.L VERMA [KASLIWAL, J.] 1049

fa« as the respondent - C.L. Verma is concerned. This appeal may now be A
heard by the Constitution Bench along with the appeal arising out of
Special Leave Petition No. 12103 of 1991 entitled Managing Director,
Electronic Corporation of India v. B. Kanmakar.

J.RJ. Referred to Constitution Bench.

-

=-