- (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of punishment dated 14-3-91 (Anuexure-4) passed by Respondent No. 2 in disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner and also against the order dated 5-9-91 (Annexure-5) passed by Respondent No. 5.
(2.) It appears that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner in respect of misconduct of mis-utlising the loan taken from the State Bank of India under which the Petitioner is serving as an employee. After serving the chargesheet an inquiry was held in which charges were found to be proved and ultimately, the appointing authority imposed the penalty of bringing down the Petitioner's basic pay by four stages in the time scale in terms of Rule 49(e) of the State Bank of India (Supervising staff) Service Rules read with Rule 50(3)(iii) ibid. It was also ordered that the entire amount of loan is to be recovered at commercial rate of interest.
(3.) In this writ petition, the Petitioner's learned Counsel pressed mainly one point that the Petitioner was not supplied the copy of the inquiry report before passing of the impugned order of punishment. In the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the Respondents it has been averred in paragraph 23 that the report of the inquiry officer was duly sent to the Petitioner alongwith the impugned order on 14-3-91. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the report of the inquiry officer ought to have been supplied before passing of the order of punishment and the Petitioner has been deprived of the opportunity of making his submissions against the inquiry report before any order of punishment was passed. However, the Petitioner could not point out what prejudice has been caused to him by non-supply of the report of the inquiry officer before passing of the impugned order. The report of the inquiry officer is said to have been supplied alongwith order of punishment and the Petitioner has preferred appeal also to the appellate authority. The copy of the memo of appeal has been annexed with the counter affidavit. The Petitioner has failed to point out whether the result would have been different if he was supplied copy of the inquiry officer's report before passing of the order of punishment. The Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, E.C.I.L. Hyderabad v. B. Karunkar, 1993 6 JT 1, has observed: Whether in fact, prejudice has been caused to the employee or not on account of the denial to him of the report, has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case. Where, therefore, even after the furnishing of the report, no different consequence would have followed, it would be a perversion of justice to permit the employee to resume duty and to get all the consequential benefits. It amounts to rewarding the dishonest and the guilty and thus to stretching the concept of justice to illogical and exasperating limits It amounts to an "unnatural expansion of natural justice" which in itself is antithetical to justice. Hence, in all cases where the Inquiry officer's report is not furnished to the delinquent employee in the disciplinary proceedings, the Courts and Tribunals should cause the copy of the report to be furnished to the aggrieved employee if he has not already secured it before coming to the court/Tribunal, and give the employee an opportunity to show how his or her case was prejudiced because of the non supply of the report. If after hearing the parties, the Court/Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the non supply of the report would have made no difference to the ultimate findings and the punishment given, the court/Tribunal should not interfere with the order of punishment. The Court/Tribunal should not mechanically set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the report was not furnished as is regrettably being done at present. The courts should avoid resorting to shortcuts. Since it is the courts/tribunals which will apply their judicial mind to the question and give their reasons for setting aside or not setting aside the order of punishment (and not any internal appellate or revisiional authority), there would be neither a breach of the principles of natural justice nor as denial of the reasonable opportunity. If is only if the court/Tribunal finds that the furnishing of the report would have made a difference to the result in the case that it should set aside the order of punishment.;