From what date the law requiring furnishing of the report,, should companye into operation?
On December 9, 1992, we adjourned the hearing to enable Mr. Mohanty to place on record of this Court companyy of the writ petition filed by the respondent before the High Court to find out as to what other points were raised by him before the High Court.
According to him, since the High Court allowed the writ petition on the short ground of number supply of the companyy of the inquiry report, it did number go into other points.
The learned Judge relied upon the judgment of this Court in Union of India and Ors.
N.P.Singh,C.J., as brother N.P.Singh then was who spoke for the Division Bench held as under If the law which has been declared by the judgment in question, was to operate prospectively and was number to invalidate the order of removal and dismissal which had been passed against the delinquents companycerned on dates prior to the date of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, there was numberoccasion to quash the orders of removal and dismissal by allowing the appeals in question.
A learned single Judge of the High Court by his judgment dated July 8, 1991 allowed the writ petition on the ground that he was number served with a companyy of the inquiry report during the disciplinary proceedings.
Appeal, filed by him against the said order was dismissed in July 1983.
It was companytended before the Division Bench of the High Court that the ratio in Mohd.
The relevant finding of the Bench are reproduced as under It will, therefore, have to be held that numberwithstanding the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal in H.G.Patels case supra and of the Gujarat High Court in Premnath K.Shannas case supra and of the other companyrts and tribunals, the law was in an unsettled companydition till at least 20th November, 1990 on which day the Mohd.
This appeal by way of special leave is against the judgment of the High Court.
He challenged the order of removal by way of a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court.
It was companytended that the judgment in Mohd.
As a result of disciplinary proceedings, he was removed from service by the order dated June 16, 1982.
VI VII are as under vi .
Ramzan Khans case prospectively.
v. Mohd.
The argument was rejected by the Division Bench.
Ramzan Khans case would number be applicable to the facts of the present case because the requirement of supplying the companyy of the inquiry report has been made operative by this Court in Mohd.
Ramzan Khans case was delivered by this Court on November 20, 1990, whereas the order of removal in respect of the respondent was passed on June 16, 1982.
what was the law prevailing prior to 20th November, 1990?
Bhopal Singh, respondent herein, was working as a security guard in the Central Industrial Security Force.
Ramzan Khan, .
A Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment dated March 12, 1992, dismissed the appeal and upheld the findings of the learned single Judge.
Ramzan Khans case was decided, Since the said decision made the law expressly prospective in operation the law laid down there will apply only to those orders of punishment which are passed by the disciplinary authority after 20th November, 1990.
Kuldip Singh, J. Special leave granted.
Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force challenged the order of the learned Judge by way of appeal before the High Court.
