Managing Director, Food Corporation Of India And Others v. Narendra Kumar Jain ., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Civil Appeal No. 1350 of 1993, decided on March 17, 1993

Disposition

remanded

Attorney(S)

V.R Reddy, Additional Solicitor General (Vivek Gambhir and S.K Gambhir, Advocates, with him) for the Appellants;
Harish N. Salve, Senior Advocate (Vishnu Mathur, B.S Jain and H.D Pathak, Advocates, with him) for the Respondent.

Judges

Justice Kuldip Singh
Justice N.M. Kasliwal

Acts

Article 14 of the Constitution of India
Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The respondent, an Assistant Manager (Depot) with the Food Corporation of India (FCI), was charge-sheeted on 3 March 1987. After a departmental inquiry in which the Inquiry Officer found the charges proved, the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service on 29 September 1988. The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging his dismissal on three grounds: (i) non-supply of the inquiry report, (ii) reliance on an undisclosed report by one Maithey, and (iii) denial of certain documents alleged to be necessary for his defence. The High Court, relying solely on Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (1991) 1 SCC 588, set aside the dismissal for breach of natural justice arising from non-supply of the inquiry report. FCI appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the High Court erred in applying the rule laid down in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan—requiring supply of the inquiry officer’s report—when that rule had been declared to operate only prospectively.
Consequently, whether the respondent’s dismissal, effected before the Ramzan decision, could be set aside on the ground of non-supply of the inquiry report.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant (Food Corporation of India)

The ratio in Mohd. Ramzan Khan was declared prospective; since the respondent’s dismissal pre-dated that judgment, he could not invoke it.

Respondent (Dismissed Employee)

Non-supply of the inquiry report violated principles of natural justice and Article 14, irrespective of the date of dismissal.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (1991) 1 SCC 588	The delinquent employee must be supplied a copy of the inquiry officer’s report before the disciplinary authority imposes punishment; the judgment expressly operates prospectively.	The Supreme Court held that because the ratio is prospective, the High Court should not have relied on it to set aside a dismissal that occurred before the Ramzan decision.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court observed that it had “specifically made the ratio in Mohd. Ramzan Khan operative prospectively.” Therefore, the High Court had no legal basis to apply that ratio to a dismissal order dated 29 September 1988, which was finalized before the Ramzan judgment was delivered in 1991. By applying a rule that did not yet exist at the relevant time, the High Court committed an error of law. The Supreme Court did not examine the two remaining grounds of challenge (reliance on extraneous material and non-supply of documents) because the High Court had not adjudicated them. Instead, it remanded the matter for fresh consideration confined to those unresolved issues.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL ALLOWED; HIGH COURT JUDGMENT SET ASIDE TO THE EXTENT IT RELIED ON MOHD. RAMZAN KHAN AND CASE REMANDED FOR DECISION ON REMAINING GROUNDS.

Immediate effect: the respondent’s dismissal is no longer quashed; the High Court must now determine the validity of dismissal on the two other grounds originally raised. Broader implication: the Court re-affirms the prospective operation of Mohd. Ramzan Khan, ensuring that disciplinary actions finalized before 20 November 1990 (the date of Ramzan) cannot be invalidated solely for non-supply of the inquiry report.

Show full summary ...

Managing Director, Food Corporation Of India And Others v. Narendra Kumar Jain .

Kuldip Singh, J.— Special leave granted.

2. The respondent was working as Assistant Manager (Depot) with the Food Corporation of India. He was charge-sheeted on March 3, 1987 and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The Inquiry Officer found the charges proved against him and as a consequence the disciplinary authority by the order dated September 29, 1988 dismissed the respondent from service. He challenged the order of dismissal before the High Court on the following three grounds:

(1) There has been violation of the principles of natural justice. The Inquiry Officer and the punishing authority being different he was entitled to a copy of the inquiry report before imposing the punishment of dismissal.

(2) The inquiry report was based on extraneous material. Maithey's report which finds mention in the charge-sheet was neither brought on the record nor copy of the same was given to him. The said report was not even placed before the appellate authority or the High Court.

(3) Copies of the relevant documents and material asked for by him, which were relevant for the defence, were not supplied. The action was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

3. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (1991) 1 SCC 588, (1991) 16 ATC 505 the High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of dismissal on the short ground that the copy of the inquiry report was not supplied to the respondent.

4. It was brought to the notice of the High Court that the law laid down by this Court in Mohd. Ramzan case (1991) 1 SCC 588, (1991) 16 ATC 505 was operative prospectively and the order dismissing the respondent being prior in date to the judgment in Mohd. Ramzan case (1991) 1 SCC 588, (1991) 16 ATC 505 he was not entitled to take advantage of the law laid down in the said judgment. The High Court rejected the contention on the following reasoning:

“The aforesaid observation of the Supreme Court does not go to the extent of depriving a person his valuable right of continuing the proceedings in court that the principle of natural justice, which is a law declared by the Supreme Court and also enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, has been violated. The only object, as appears, is that the closed chapter may not be reopened. If a person has not acquiesced in the order impugned, or the court has given a verdict upholding his dismissal, or the person has lost his right to approach the court, in such events, the said decision would not be applicable and the prospectivity is (sic in) considering these aspects that the controversies which have been buried, may not come out of the grave.”

We do not agree with the reasoning of the High Court. This Court having specifically made the ratio in Mohd. Ramzan case (1991) 1 SCC 588, (1991) 16 ATC 505 operative prospectively there was no scope for the High Court to have applied the same to the facts of the present case.

5. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court to the extent indicated above and remand the case to the High Court for decision on the other two points which were raised before the High Court but not decided. No costs.

Managing Director, Food Corporation Of India And Others v. Narendra Kumar Jain .

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant (Food Corporation of India)

Respondent (Dismissed Employee)

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Managing Director, Food Corporation Of India And Others v. Narendra Kumar Jain .

Comments