PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. UGGAR SAIN GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court dated April 7, 1993 affirming on appeal those of the trial Judge decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.

(2.) FACTS :the plaintiff-respondent was an employee of the Punjab State Electricity Board (for short 'the Board' ). He was charge sheeted. He submitted his explanation to the charge sheet. The same was found unsatisfactory and regular enquiry was ordered against him. In the regular enquiry, the charges stood proved against him. On receipt of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority issued him a show cause notice as to why punishment of termination from services be not imposed upon him. After consideration of the reply to the show cause notice, the order of termination from service dated 8. 3. 1990 was passed. The plaintiff challenged the same in regular civil suit on various grounds. The Board controverted the pleas of the plaintiff and from the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : 1) Whether the order dated 8. 3. 1990 passed by defendant No. 2 is illegal and null and void? OPP 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for? OP P

(3.) THE Board challenged the same in the first appeal. The first Appellant Court dismissed the appeal on the solitary ground that copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the plaintiff along with show cause notice and that non supply of the copy of the enquiry officer's report renders the order of punishment invalid. In arriving at this conclusion, learned first Appellate Court purports to have relied upon the decision of the apex Court reported as Union of India and Ors. v. Mohammed Ramzan Khan, A. I. R. 1991 (1) S. C. 471. Mohammed Ramzan's case was explained by the apex Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar, Judgments Today 1993 (6) S. C. 1, wherein it was held thus :xx xx xx xx xx xx "hence till 20th November, 1990, i. e. , the day on which Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case (supra) was decided, the position of law on the subject was not settled by this Court. It is for the first time in Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case (supra) that this Court laid down the law. That decision made the law laid down there prospective in operation, i. e. applicable to the orders of punishment passed after 20th November, 1990. The law laid down was not applicable to the orders of punishment passed before that date notwithstanding the fact that the proceedings arising out of the same were pending in courts after that date. The said proceedings had to be decided according to the law prevalent prior to the said date which did not require the authority to supply a copy of the Inquiry Officer's report to the employee. The only exception to this was where the service rules with regard to the disciplinary proceedings themselves made it obligatory to supply a copy of the report to the employee. "