ASHOK POPLI Vs. INDIAN AIRLINES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule D.B.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The principal ground of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not supplied the copy of the Inquiry Report and as such the punishment awarded is vitiated. He has placed reliance on a recent decision of the Supreme Court, J.T. 1990 (4) S.C. 456 Union of India and others v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan. Their Lordships had held that no material could be used behind the back of the delinquent and as such copy of the Inquiry Report ought to be furnished before imposition of punishment. However, in para 17, their Lordships clearly stated that this authority shall have prospective application and no punishment imposed shall be open to challenge on this ground. In the present case, the punishment was awarded on 26th December, 1988. Though the principle enunciated by their Lordships o.f the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case helps the petitioner but in view of the observations made in para 17, the law laid down in the aforesaid Judgment cannot be made applicable to the present case, as the punishment was awarded earlier to the aforesaid Judgment. However, learned counsel for the respondent conceded that a copy of the Inquiry Report has already been furnished to the petitioner and the petitioner may still move the reviewing authority on the basis of Inquiry Report and the reviewing authority will consider the petitioner's submissions based on the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid concession made by the learned counsel for the respondent, counsel for the petitioner has not pressed the other points as he would be able to urge other points before the reviewing authority.