PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & Ors. v. K.K. VERMA

1.2. The right of an employee to represent against the adverse findings in an inquiry report is referrable to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The import of this provision was explained by a Constitution Bench** of the Supreme Court which held that it included both the opportunities to an employee, namely, to deny one's guilt E and establish innocence, which he can, only if he is informed about the charges and the imputations in support, and secondly, an opportunity to make a representation on the proposed punishment. The Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution w.e.f 6th October;'1963 amended Article 311 (2), and further clarified the position in this behalf. The import of this change was explained by another Constitution Bench £ which in terms noted that it is well settled that the public servant who is entitled to the protection of Article 311, must get two opportunities to defend himself. First, to G defend the charge against him and prove his innocence, which opportunity is to be given by giving him the report against him, and then a second notice when the government decides provisionally about the proposed F H 314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 OJ 11 S.C.R. B A punishment, as to why the same should not be imposed. The 42nd Amendment effected in 1976 once again amended sub-article 311 (2). In Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case, this Court was concerned with the question as to whether the 42nd Amendment brought about any change in the matter of supply of a copy of the report which is a part of the first stage, and the effect of non-supply thereof on the punishment proposed. It is only with a view not to affect the inquiries which were conducted in the meanwhile that the Court held that those inquiries will not C be affected, and though it was only declaring the law, the propositions laid down therein will apply prospectively. This was basically to protect the actions which were taken during the interregnum i.e after the 42nd Amendment became effective until it was explained as above in this judgment. [Paras 17, 18, 19, 20] [326-A-E; G-H; 327-A-F; 328-B-C] 0 *Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan 1991 (1) SCC 588, Explained. E