Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dealt with two appeals by the State Bank of India against a common High Court order that set aside disciplinary punishments imposed on the respondent, Mohammad Badruddin, a bank employee. The first appeal concerned a punishment of reversion to Junior Management Grade imposed in 1988. The High Court had set it aside on the ground that the inquiry report was not supplied to the delinquent before punishment, citing Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar. The Supreme Court held that the requirement to supply the inquiry report, as laid down in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (1991), was given prospective effect from November 20, 1990. Since the punishment order was passed on August 12, 1988, prior to that date, non-supply of the report did not vitiate the proceedings. The Court restored the punishment of reversion. The second appeal involved a punishment of removal from service imposed in 1993. The High Court had set it aside because the disciplinary authority disagreed with the inquiry officer's findings on charges 1 and 5 but did not communicate its reasons for disagreement to the delinquent. The Supreme Court noted that the inquiry officer had found charge 4 (perfunctory checking of Clean Cash Book) proved, which was a grave and independent charge. The Court held that even if the disagreement on other charges was not communicated, the punishment could be sustained on the proved charge alone, relying on the principle of severability from State of Orissa v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra. The Court also rejected the argument that past punishment was considered without notice, citing State of Mysore v. K. Manche Gowda that past record can be considered in the second stage. The Court allowed both appeals, setting aside the High Court's orders and restoring the punishments.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Non-supply of Inquiry Report - Prospective Effect - The requirement to supply copy of inquiry report to delinquent before punishment, as laid down in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (1991) 1 SCC 588, was given prospective effect from November 20, 1990. Where the disciplinary authority passed the order of punishment prior to that date, non-supply of the report does not vitiate the proceedings. The High Court erred in setting aside the punishment on that ground. (Paras 5-7) B) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Disagreement with Inquiry Report - Communication of Reasons - When the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the inquiry officer, it must communicate its tentative reasons for disagreement to the delinquent and give him an opportunity to respond, as held in Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra (1998) 7 SCC 84. Failure to do so violates natural justice and vitiates the punishment order. (Paras 9, 12) C) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Severability of Charges - Even if some charges are not proved, punishment can be sustained on a single proved charge if it is grave and independent. The court may not interfere if the punishment is not disproportionate to the proved misconduct. (Para 13) D) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Consideration of Past Punishment - The punishing authority may take into account the past record of the delinquent during the second stage of inquiry (after the inquiry report) without making it a specific charge, as held in State of Mysore v. K. Manche Gowda. However, the delinquent must be given an opportunity to respond if the past punishment is relied upon. (Para 14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in setting aside disciplinary punishments on grounds of non-supply of inquiry report (pre-1990) and non-communication of disagreement with inquiry report, and whether past punishment can be considered without notice.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed both appeals. In Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 20770 of 2017, the order of the High Court in LPA No. 261 of 2007 was set aside and the punishment of reversion to Junior Management Grade at the lowest stage was restored. In Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 20488 of 2017, the order of the High Court in LPA No. 258 of 2007 was set aside and the punishment of removal from service was restored.
Law Points
- Prospective application of Mohd. Ramzan Khan
- Severability of charges
- Communication of disagreement with inquiry report
- Consideration of past punishment
