S.R.ALAM AND SUDHIR AGARWAL, JJ. - (1.) THIS Intra -court appeal, under the Rules of the Court, has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28.7.1999 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge dismissing the petitioner -appellant's (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) CM. writ petition No. 30958 of 1999.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, giving rise to the present dispute is that the petitioner -appellant was working as Godown Keeper in U.P. Co -operative Federation Ltd. Lucknow. On certain charges of misconduct, a charge sheet was issued to him on 5.12.83 which was replied by him on 26.12.83. After conducting oral inquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted report on 30.3.84 holding certain charges ware proved against him and in respect to some of the charges it was observed that since criminal proceedings are pending, in a Court of law, therefore, no finding is recorded as the same may influence as pending proceedings in the court of law. Based on findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority on 28th November 1984 proposing punishment of dismissal and also recovery of Rs. 1,20,636.84. The petitioner submitted reply to the said show cause notice. The disciplinary authority by the order dated 18.6.99. impugned in the writ petition imposed punishment of dismissal and recovery of Rs. 1,20,636.84 from the petitioner. The aforesaid punishment was imposed after obtaining approval from the U.P. Co -operative Institutional Service Board (hereinafter referred to as 'Board'). Learned counsel for the appellant sought to assail before the us impugned Judgment of Hon'ble Single Judge on two grounds. Firstly, that the copy of enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner and, therefore, proceedings are illegal in view of the Apex Court decision rendered in Union of India and Ors. v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan : (1991)ILLJ29SC . Secondly, that since a criminal case was already pending in respect to charges 8,9 and 10 simultaneous disciplinary proceedings could not be held and, therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated in law. It is contended that the Hon'ble Single Judge having failed to consider the aforesaid aspects of the matter has erred in law therefore, impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and writ petition is liable to be heard afresh on merits. Having given our serious thoughts to the issues raised by learned Counsel for the appellant, we, are not in agreement with the contentions advanced by him.
(3.) COMING to the first submission, admittedly, enquiry report was submitted on 30.3.84 and show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 28.11.84. In paragraph 17 of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner was supplied a copy of enquiry report whereof he submitted his reply. In the circumstances, the submission that copy of enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner is ex facie incorrect and contrary to the pleadings as is evident from paragraph 17 of the writ petition. Moreover the law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohd. Ramzan Khan (supra) has no application in the present case since the enquiry proceedings are of the period held prior to 20.11.1990 and the Apex Court in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakarl 1993(6) JF (SC) 1, has clearly held that law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohd. Ramzan Khan (Supra) would be applicable prospectively, namely, only to those matters where punishment orders are subsequent to the judgment of Ramzan Khan (supra) and those which are of the period prior to Mohd. Ramzan Khan (supra) would not be covered by the said decision.;