Petition against MP Govt, others heard

Source: The Hitavada      Date: 05 Apr 2018 10:24:54


 

 

Legal Correspondent

IN THE matter related to petitioner challenging departmental enquiry, division bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court comprising Chief Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla said that ‘we do not find that condition of non-supply of inquiry report can be extended in the case of appellant as order of punishment was passed before judgement rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd Ramzan dismissed.’ Division bench of MPHC heard the appeal filed by Motiram, an employee of Forest Department, against the Madhya Pradesh Government and others. Challenge in present appeal is to an order passed by the single bench on November 18, 2009, in writ petition, whereby challenge to order of dismissal dated June 30, 1990, by the disciplinary authority; appellate order dated on November 2, 1992, by the Conservator of Forest and order dated on July 19, 1996, by the Additional Principal, Chief Conservator of Forest, remained unsuccessful. Only ground to challenge the order of punishment is that copy of the inquiry report was not supplied before imposing punishment. Single bench dismissed writ petition on the ground that the appellant has failed to show any prejudice caused on account of non-supply of the inquiry report.


However, we find that the requirement of supply of inquiry report came to be explained by the Supreme Court in its judgement reported as (1991) (Union of India and others vs Mohd Ramzan Khan) decided on November 20, 1990.
The court held as under that ‘there have been several decisions in different high courts which following 42nd Amendment, have taken view that it is no longer necessary to furnish a copy of inquiry report to delinquent officers. Even on some occasions this court has taken that view. Since we have reached a different conclusion judgements in different high courts taking contrary view must be taken to be no longer laying down good law. We have not been shown any decision of a coordinate or a larger bench of this court taking this view.


Therefore, conclusion to contrary reached by any two judges bench in this court will also no longer be taken to be laying down good law, but this shall have prospective application and no punishment imposed shall be open to challenge on this ground.’ It has been held that requirement of copy of inquiry report has to be supplied, shall have prospective application and no punishment imposed shall be open to challenge on this ground. In present case, punishment was imposed on June 30, 1990, that is before decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the Mohd Ramzan’s case. In view of the said fact, we do not find that condition of non-supply of inquiry report can be extended in the case of appellant as the order of punishment was passed before the judgement rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd Ramzan dismissed, division bench said.