S.N. Sahay, J. - (1.) The petitioner was employed us a Section Officer (Watches) by M/s. Hindustan Much.no Tools Ltd respondent. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 4th September, 1981 and n enquiry was held into charges levelled against him The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges of indulging in corrupt practice with an intention to obtain illegal gratification. He also four, that the petitioner had committed disobedience to the order of a Regional Sales Officer, New Delhi is not handing over charge of the Lucknow Shot Room to Sri S. V. Mansukhani. Section Officer on the morning on 27th July, 1981. Th Deputy General Manager agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and by order dated 31st March, 1982 directed that the petitioner be discharged from the service of the company under Clouse 17-1-7 of the Hindustan Machine Tools Conduct, Discipline ami Appeal Rules with immediate effect reserving the rights of the Company to recover any amount due from him The period of suspension of the petitioner from 25th September, i98l to date was also confirmed The petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Executive Director of the Company by order dated 15th May, 1982. Hence this writ petition.
(2.) The first ground ti. which the impugned order has bean assailed by the petitioner is that the report of the Enquiry Officer was not supplied to the petitioner and not opportunity was given to him to show cause against the same before it passing die impugned order and so the principles of natural justice have been violated. In Union of India v. Mohd Ramzan Khan. (1991) 1 SCC 588it has been held that to report of the Enquiry Officer is an adverse r a.m., if the Enquiry Officer records a finding of guilt and purposes a punishment so far as the delinquent is concerned. In a quasi-judicial matter if a delinquent is being deprived of knowledge of the material against him, though the same is matte available to the Punishing Authority in the matter of reaching his conclusion, rules of natural justice would be affected. The above decision was followed by this Court in Sarfaraj Ali v. U P. S. R. T. C . 1991 (9) LCD 473. It was observed that a delinquent employee would be entitled to get a copy of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and if the copy of the findings have not been supplied to him the ultimate order of punishment inflicted upon him would be vitiated.
(3.) In Mohd Ramzan Khan's case, cited above, the main question was whether with the alteration of the provisions of Article 311 (2) under the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution doing away with the opportunity of showing cause against the proposed punishment, the delinquent has also his right to be entitled to a copy of the report of enquiry in the disciplinary proceedings. This question was answered in the negative, but it was held that supply of a copy of the enquiry report alongwith the recommendation, if any, in tin muter of proposed punishment to be inflicted within tire rules of natural justice and the delinquent will, therefore, be entitled to the supply of a copy thereof and that the 42no Amend meat has not brought about any change in this position. In S. P. Vtshwanathan v. Union of India, Suppi (2) SCC 269 it has, however, been held that the decision given in Mond. Ramzan Khan's case was given a prospective effect and will not affect the orders passed prior to the date of rendering of the judgment (21st November 1990) as would be clear from Para 17 of the judgment.;