No Mandatory Requirement Of Communicating The Proposed Punishment To A Delinquent Civil Servant: SC [Read Judgment]

The bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta also held that the non-communication of the previous punishments in the show cause notice will not vitiate the punishment imposed.

In this case (State Bank of India vs, Mohammad Badruddin) the High Court had interfered with the punishment awarded to a civil servant on the ground that previous punishment of reversion to the Junior Manager in the lowest grade was taken into consideration though the delinquent was not made aware of such fact in the proceedings. The contention which found favour with the High Court was that since the past punishment is taken into consideration, the delinquent has to be made aware of such fact.

In the appeal, the Apex Court bench observed that the omitted provisions of Article 311 provided that an opportunity was required to be given to submit a representation on penalty proposed. Now, such requirement had been omitted by 42nd Constitutional Amendment, the Court noted. The bench referred to constitution bench judgment in B. Karunakar which held that it was no longer necessary to issue a notice to the delinquent employee to show cause against the punishment proposed. The Court observed:

Requirement of second show cause notice of proposed punishment has been dispensed with. The mandate now is only to apprise the delinquent of the Inquiry Officer's report. There is no necessity of communicating proposed punishment which was specifically contemplated by clause (2) of Article 311 prior to 42nd Amendment.

With regard to the contention that, the delinquent was not made aware of the fact that previous punishments were being taken into account, the court said:

The previous punishments could not be subject matter of the charge sheet as it is beyond the scope of inquiry to be conducted by the Inquiry Officer as such punishments have attained finality in the proceedings. The requirement of second show cause notice stands specifically omitted by 42nd Amendment. Therefore, the only requirement now is to send a copy of Inquiry Report to the delinquent to meet the principle of natural justice being the adverse material against the delinquent. There is no mandatory requirement of communicating the proposed punishment. Therefore, there cannot be any bar to take into consideration previous punishments in the constitutional scheme as interpreted by this Court. Thus, the non-communication of the previous punishments in the show cause notice will not vitiate the punishment imposed."

While disposing a connected case, the bench observed that Constitution Bench judgment in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar has itself given prospective effect i.e. that the inquiries concluded prior to the judgment dated November 20, 1990 will not be affected by the law laid down in the said judgment. In that case, it was held 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. 

Click here to Download Judgment

Read Judgment