10. In Canara Bank & Ors. v. Shri Debasis Das & Ors., AIR
2003 SC 2041, this Court explained the ratio of the judgment in Kunj
Behari Misra (supra), observing that it was a case where the
disciplinary authority differed from the view of the Inquiry Officer.
“In that context, it was held that denial of opportunity of hearing was
per se violative of the principles of natural justice.”
11. In fact, not furnishing the copy of the recorded reasons for
disagreement from the enquiry report itself causes the prejudice to the
delinquent and therefore, it has to be understood in an entirely
different context than that of the issue involved in ECIL (supra).
12. The learned Single Judge has concluded the case observing as
under:
“The whole process that resulted in dismissal of the
petitioner is flawed from his inception and the order of
dismissal cannot be sustained. I am examining this case
after nearly 23 years after its institution and the petitioner
has also attained the age of superannuation. The issue of
reinstatement or giving him the benefit of his wages for
during the time when he did not serve will not be
appropriate. The impugned orders of dismissal are set
aside and the petitioner shall be taken to have retired on
the date when he would have superannuated and all the
terminal benefits shall be worked out and paid to him in
12 weeks on such basis. There shall be, however, no JUDGMENT direction for payment of any salary for the period when
he did not work.”
13. As the case is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in
Kunj Behari Misra (supra), we do not see any reason to approve the
impugned judgment rendered by the Division Bench.
Thus, in view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment
and order of the Division Bench is set aside and that of the learned
Single Judge is restored. No costs.
(Dr. B.S. Chauhan)
(S.A. Bobde)
New Delhi,
July 4, 2013