Natural justice in disciplinary proceedings requires disclosure of disagreement reasons before an adverse removal order is made.

Prospective application of the rule on supply of the inquiry report meant that disciplinary orders passed before the relevant cut-off could not be invalidated solely for non-supply of that report. Where the inquiry report is favourable to the delinquent and the disciplinary authority proposes to differ, natural justice requires communication of the reasons of disagreement before the adverse order is made. The text also states that, although one charge was found proved, it was for the disciplinary authority to decide whether that charge alone justified removal; in the circumstances, remand was the proper course and consequential benefits were to be reconsidered.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order of punishment passed before the prospective cut-off in Mohd. Ramzan Khan could be set aside merely for non-supply of the inquiry report; (ii) Whether the removal order was vitiated for non-communication of the disciplinary authority's reasons of disagreement and whether the matter could be remanded for reconsideration.

Issue (i): Whether an order of punishment passed before the prospective cut-off in Mohd. Ramzan Khan could be set aside merely for non-supply of the inquiry report.

Analysis: The prospective effect given to the law on supply of the inquiry report meant that disciplinary orders passed before the relevant date could not be invalidated solely on that ground. The later Constitution Bench ruling in B. Karunakar confirmed that the right to receive the inquiry report operated as part of fair procedure, but the prospective limitation preserved earlier concluded disciplinary orders from automatic invalidation on this basis.

Conclusion: The punishment order passed before the cut-off could not be set aside merely because the inquiry report had not been supplied.

Issue (ii): Whether the removal order was vitiated for non-communication of the disciplinary authority's reasons of disagreement and whether the matter could be remanded for reconsideration.

Analysis: Where the inquiry report is favourable to the delinquent and the disciplinary authority proposes to differ, natural justice requires communication of the reasons of disagreement before the adverse decision is taken. The same principle also governs the use of adverse material affecting punishment. The Court further held that although charge No. 4 stood proved without disagreement, it was for the disciplinary authority, not the Court, to decide whether that charge alone justified removal. Since the employee had superannuated, reinstatement was not a workable relief and remand was the appropriate course.

Conclusion: The removal order was unsustainable for want of communication of reasons of disagreement, and the matter was remanded to the disciplinary authority for fresh consideration on punishment and consequential benefits.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, one punishment order was restored and the other was set aside with remand, and the disciplinary authority was directed to pass appropriate orders on back wages and terminal benefits.

Ratio Decidendi: After the Forty-second Amendment, the delinquent is entitled to a copy of the inquiry report and to be heard on proposed disagreement, but not to a separate notice of proposed punishment; however, where the disciplinary authority differs from favourable findings, the reasons of disagreement must be communicated before the final adverse order is made.

---