(1.) THIS is an application purporting to be under O. 47, Rule 1 read with Section 151, C. P. Code presented on behalf of the State of U. P. praying for a review of our judgment dated 25th February 1974 rendered in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by Jawahar Lal Bhargava. a Government servant, who had questioned the validity of his suspension pending a departmental inquiry affainst him. We quashed the order of suspension by a writ of certiorari. We held that R. 49-A of the U. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules did not empower the Government to suspend Jawahar Lal Bhargava before actually an inquiry as contemplated by Rule 55 of the said Rules had started or was about to start, that is to say Jawahar Lal Bhargava could not be suspended until it was decided by the disciplinary authority to take action and hold an inquiry under R. 55 of said Rules. We interpreted the main clauses of Rule 49-A and in support of our conclusion we also mentioned a note appended below Rule 49-A as a pointer to the correctness of our conclusion. After the judgment had been rendered the Government deleted the note with retrospective effect as if it was never there. This application for review is grounded on the contention that the note having been deleted with retrospective effect and the law having been substantially altered the judgment rendered by us on 25th February 1974 becomes erroneous at the face of it.
(2.) THE learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the applicant State relied on a Full Bench decision of the Court in Mohammad Azamat Aziz Khan v. Raja Shatranji. AIR 1963 All 541.
(3.) NOW coming to the merits we must point out that the learned Chief Standing Counsel assumes that our judgment is based on the note to Rule 49-A. That is not so. We have in our judgment analysed the main clauses of Rule 49-A and construed them according to our wisdom. Even if the note to Rule 49-A were not there our conclusion would not have been different. Mere deletion of the note even with retrospective effect, therefore, does not bring about any substantial alteration or change in law. It is not the case set up on behalf of the State that the main clauses of Rule 49-A have been altered. In our judgment the law remains the same. In that view of the matter the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of AIR 1963 All 541 (FB) (supra) would not apply and the learned Chief Standing Counsel cannot draw any benefit from the ratio of the decision in that case.