D.S.P. Rao vs The A.P.S.R.T.C. and Others

P.S. Mishra, C.J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents,

We do not propose to enter into the merits of the matter, as there is a clear violation of the principle as enunciated by the Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, Vs. Karunakar, etc. etc., . The appellant is an Assistant Depot Clerk in the establishment of the respondent - corporation, which it is not in dispute, is an Industry. He was subjected to a domestic enquiry into the charges levelled against him. A notice calling upon him to show cause against the proposed punishment was given to him and later he has been punished. It has transpired, however, that before deciding to serve the notice of proposed punishment upon the appellant, a copy of the report of enquiry was not served upon him and he was not called upon to comment upon or explain the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Learned Counsel for the respondent -Corporation has not disputed the requirement of serving a copy of the enquiry report and obtaining the comments/explanations of the delinquent employee before a decision to punish him is taken, but has submitted, unlike Karunakar''s case (supra), in the instant case the Corporation has statutory rules which contemplate a second notice to show cause against proposed punishment and for serving a copy of the enquiry report along with the said notice.

A reading of the Judgment in Karunakar''s case (supra) will show that taking of even a tentative decision to punish and serving a notice accordingly to show cause against proposed punishment, before the comments of the delinquent employee are obtained, will be illegal. Entitlement to a copy of the enquiry report before any decision to show cause for proposed punishment is given, has been held to be a part of the proceedings in enquiry to decide whether the delinquent is guilty or not and unless it is found he is guilty, no one can take a decision to punish. A notice against proposed punishment thus is one in which it is decided that the delinquent employee is guilty and therefore, he now is required to be punished. This decision making process would have started only after obtaining the comments/explanations of the delinquent employee.

In the instant case, however, we have found that a copy of the enquiry report has been furnished to the appellant. We have good reason to think that the appellant should get an opportunity to furnish his comments/explanations in respect of the findings of the Enquiry Officer and accordingly to direct the respondent-Corporation to decide whether he is found guilty or not and when he is so found guilty then only to issue notice to show cause against proposed punishment. For the reason aforesaid the impugned orders in the writ petition are set aside and the enquiry is ordered to proceed from the stage of obtaining the comments of the appellant herein upon the findings of the Enquiry Officer.

The appeal is allowed and ordered accordingly.