STATE BANK OF INDIA & Ors. v. MOHAMMAD BADRUDDIN

Judgment

1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 9 S.C.R. 1016 [2019] 9 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. v. MOHAMMAD BADRUDDIN (Civil Appeal No.5604 of 2019). JULY 16, 2019 [L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.] Service Law: Punishment of reversion – Propriety of – Disciplinary proceedings – Departmental enquiry – Punishment of compulsory retirement – Appellate Authority altered the punishment to one of reversion – Reviewing Authority sustained the punishment of reversion – Writ petition by the delinquent dismissed by Single Judge of High Court – Division Bench of High Court in writ appeal relying on Ramzan Khan case set aside the order of punishment holding that copy of Inquiry Report was not supplied to the delinquent before passing order of punishment and hence violative of principles of natural justice – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: The judgment relied on by the Division Bench, whereby non-furnishing of inquiry report was held to be violative of rules of natural justice, since was given prospective effect, the inquiries conducted prior to date of that judgment (i.e. 20.11.1990) would not be affected by the law laid down in that judgment – The order of punishment in the present case was passed prior to 20.11.1990, it could not have been set aside on the ground of non-furnishing of copy of inquiry report – Punishment of reversion is restored. Removal from service – Propriety of – Disciplinary inquiry – 5 charges levelled against the delinquent – Inquiry Officer found only charge No. 4 as proved while other charges (charge Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 5) were not found proved – Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings in respect of charge Nos. 1 and 5 – Thus on the basis of charge Nos. 1,4 and 5 and also on the basis of punishment of reversion in earlier departmental proceedings, inflicted penalty/ punishment of removal from service – Order was confirmed in departmental appeal – Single Judge of High Court dismissed the writ petition – Division Bench of High Court, in writ appeal, held 1016 STATE BANK OF INDIA. v. MOHAMMAD BADRUDDIN 1017 that punishment of removal stands vitiated because the reasons for disagreement with the Inquiry Report in respect of charge Nos. 1 and 5 was not supplied to the delinquent and because the previous punishment of reversion was taken into consideration without bringing it to the notice of the delinquent – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: There is no mandatory requirement of communicating the proposed punishment after 42nd Constitutional amendment – Therefore, there cannot be any bar in the constitutional scheme to into consideration previous punishments – Thus, non-communication of previous punishments in the show cause notice will not vitiate the punishment imposed – Non-communication of reasons for disagreement recorded in respect of charge Nos. 1 and 5 also cannot be faulted with – However, in exercise of power of judicial review, Supreme Court cannot maintain the punishment of removal from service in view of findings recorded on charge No. 4 – It is for the Disciplinary Authority to consider whether punishment of removal on the basis of charge No. 4 alone was sustainable or not – Matter is remitted back to Disciplinary Authority. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: Civil Appeal No. 5605/2019

#1. The Division Bench by impugned order set aside the order of punishment on the ground that copy of the Inquiry Report was not supplied to the delinquent, before the Disciplinary Authority passed an order of punishment, but was supplied along with the order of punishment, therefore, there is complete violation of cardinal principle of natural justice. In *Mohd. Ramzan Khan case (case relied on by Division Bench) laid down that wherever Inquiry Officer 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. A non-furnishing of the report would amount to violation of rules of natural justice and make the final order liable to challenge hereafter. However, the said judgment itself has been given A B C D E F G H 1018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 9 S.C.R. prospective effect i.e. the inquiries concluded prior to the judgment dated November 20, 1990 will not be affected by the law laid down in the said judgment. Since the order of punishment was passed by the Disciplinary Authority prior to November 20, 1990, therefore, the same could not be set aside only for the reason that the copy of the Inquiry Report was not supplied to the delinquent. Consequently, the order of the High Court in LPA No. 261 of 2007 is set aside and the order of punishment of reversion to the post of Junior Management Grade at the lowest stage, as modified by the Appellate Authority, is ordered to be restored. [Paras 4, 5 and 7] [1021-E-H; 1022-F]