The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a 1988 disciplinary order reducing salary by two stages. The petition relied on a 1991 Supreme Court decision requiring supply of inquiry reports, but the Court held that decision applies prospectively, bars reopening of past punishments. Petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Civil Writ Petition No. 18606 of 1991
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 18606 of 1991 Date of decision: 26.09.2011
C.L. Kachroo
...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. V. Ram Sawroop, Advocate for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.
RANJIT SINGH J.
The petitioner has approached this Court claiming various reliefs. The petitioner pleads for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 04.10.1985 and subsequent orders whereby he was imposed penalty of reduction of salary by two stages. The appeal and revision filed by the petitioner against these orders were also rejected. The petitioner has, accordingly, impugned these orders as well.
The petitioner was an employe of respondent-Punjab National Bank. This Bank was acquired by the Government of India. The petitioner joined as Clerk-cum-Cashier on 01.05.1961 and promoted as Junior Management Grade Scale-I, Middle Management Grade Scale-II and Middle Management Grade Scale-III. From 23.10.1986 to 05.05.1990, the petitioner worked as Senior Manager, Branch Office Sector 28, Chandigarh. In recognition of his good working, this branch was given 'Best Branch Award'. The petitioner worked as Manager at Amirakadel Branch in Srinagar while working
Civil Writ Petition No. 18606 of 1991
2
in the Branch Office, the petitioner is alleged to have committed certain irregularities, for which the Bank issued him a charge sheet for taking disciplinary action under the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977.
The petitioner was charge-sheeted on 04.10.1985, to which he submitted his reply. Mr. R.P. Sharma, Manager Zonal Office appointed as Inquiry Officer. Later, Mr. R.D. Bhutani was detailed as new Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry officer submitted his report and on the basis of the findings of the Inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority had decided to impose major penalty of reduction of salary by two stages. Against this order, the petitioner filed an appeal on 10.02.1989. This was rejected on 17.10.1989. The petitioner filed review petition against this order, which was rejected on 14.01.1991. The petitioner, accordingly, filed this writ petition.
Pleading that, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court, the petitioner was required to be supplied a copy of the Inquiry report by the disciplinary authority but it was supplied to the petitioner only along with order of punishment on 27.12.1988. The petitioner, accordingly, has raised number of questions and ultimately has raised all these pleas in the writ petition.
Though, the petitioner raised number of pleas in the writ petition but during the course of arguments the counsel has pressed only a solitary plea regarding non-supply of the inquiry report before passing the order.
In this regard, the stand of the respondents is that the petitioner had made this prayer for supply of the inquiry report on the basis of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union
Civil Writ Petition No. 18606 of 1991
3
of India and others Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 Supreme Court Cases 588. This judgment will not apply to the facts of the present case as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the judgment in this case would apply prospectively and would not have retrospective effect. In this regard the relevant observations is as under:-
There have been several decisions in different High Courts which, following the Forty-second Amendment, have taken the view that it is no longer necessary to furnish a copy of the inquiry report to delinquent officers. Even on some occasions this court has taken this Courts has taken that view. Since we have reached a different conclusion the judgments in the different High Courts taking the 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, the conclusion to the contrary reached by any two Judge bench in this case 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.
Thus, it has been clearly held that this view would prospectively apply and no punishment imposed shall be open to challenge on this ground. The punishment, in this case, was imposed on the petitioner in the year 1988. The law has been laid down in
Civil Writ Petition No. 18606 of 1991
4
Mohd. Ramzan's case (supra) in the year 1991. Accordingly, the petitioner cannot seek reopening of the punishment, in view of the clear law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The ground pressed by the counsel for the petitioner, thus, is without merit. No other argument had been addressed before me.
The writ petition, accordingly, dismissed.
September 26, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition impugning a disciplinary order passed in 1988 for non-supply of inquiry report can succeed in light of a Supreme Court decision made in 1991 holding the rule prospective only.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India and others Vs. Mohd. Ramzan KhanDistinguished¶26
(1991) 1 Supreme Court Cases 588
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C.L. Kachroo
Union of India
RANJIT SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
