Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) THE State is in Appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below whereby punishment of reduction in rank to the initial stage of pay for a period of 3 years as well as recovery of loss of Rs. 20,258.40p was imposed vide order dated 26.04.1991 was set aside. Such order was set aside on the ground that the plaintiff was not supplied with the copy of the inquiry report before imposing punishment as laid down in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Union of India v. Mohammad Ramzan Khan', : 1991 (1) S.C.C. 588. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that the following substantial question of law arises for consideration: - "Whether the Civil Court while setting aside the order of punishment for the reason that copy of the inquiry report was not supplied, is bound to give liberty to the employer to initiate proceedings from the stage of illegality -
(2.) THE order of punishment against the plaintiff was passed on 26.02.1991 that is after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Ramzan Khan's case (supra) delivered on 20.11.1990. In the aforesaid case, it was held that the principles of natural justice warrants that copy of the inquiry report is supplied to the delinquent in cases where the Inquiry Officer is other than the disciplinary authority, even after the amendment in Article 311 and other Punishment and Appeal Rules applicable to the different departments. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment "ECIL v. B. Karunakar, : (1993) 4 S.C.C. 727, has held that the rule laid down in Mohammad Ramzan Khan's case (supra) is prospective i.e. from the date the order was announced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Ramzan Khan's case (supra). In the present Regular Second Appeal, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the order of punishment should not be set aside merely for the reason that the copy of the inquiry report was not supplied. The employee needs to prove the prejudice suffered by him on account of non supply of the inquiry report. I do not find any merit in such argument at this stage. Both the Courts have set aside the order of punishment for the reason that the copy the inquiry report was not supplied. At the stage of second appeal, the question of prejudice cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time.
(3.) IN view of the said fact, the order of punishment having passed after the judgment in Mohammad Ramzan Khan's case (supra), the same has been rightly set aside.;