S.P. Kurdukar, C.J. - (1.) THIS letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated July 11, 1991 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition 2567 of 1987. The departmental proceedings initiated against the respondent -writ petitioner in the year 1982 culminated in passing of two orders which were challenged in the writ petition. The contentions raised on behalf of the respondent -writ petitioner were that no show cause notice as required under Regulation 9(4) of the Punjab State Electricity Board (Punishment & Appeal) Regulations, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as Regulations) was given to him and that the order passed in appeal was cryptic and assigns no reasons.
(2.) IT is an admitted position that on the date of charge -sheet i.e. August 23, 1982, Regulation 9(4) had envisaged a show cause notice to the employee before awarding punishment. It is also admitted position that the Regulation 9(4) was amended on August 27, 1985 and issuance of show cause notice was dispensed with. It is also an admitted position that on the date of order passed by the disciplinary authority, amended Regulation was in force. Learned Single Judge granted the desired relief to the petitioner on two counts; (i) that the amended Regulation does not apply inasmuch as the writ petitioner was charge -sheeted prior to August 27, 1985 and, therefore he would be governed by un -amended Regulation 9(4) and since show cause notice was not issued, the order passed by the disciplinary authority was vitiated; and (ii) that the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority was "wholly cryptic and assigns no reasons". Consistent with these findings, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and granted the necessary reliefs. It is this judgment which is sought to be challenged in the present appeal. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing in support of this appeal urged that the respondent writ petitioner's case is covered by the amended provisions and since the provision relating to the issuance of the show cause notice has been dispensed with under the amended Regulation, the disciplinary authority was not required to issue such show cause notice. He further urged that the procedure prescribed under Regulation 9(4) stood amended from August 27, 1985 and this being a procedural amendment, there was no right vested in the respondent -writ petitioner in terms of unamended Regulation 9(4).
(3.) AS against this, Mr. Punia, Learned counsel appearing for respondent -writ petitioner urged that the Petitioner had a vested right of appeal and procedure prescribed for the appeal would apply. He further urged that since the charge -sheet was prior to August 27, 1985, the case of the petitioner would fall under un -amended Regulation 9(4). In support of this submission, learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. M/s. Supreme General Films Exchange Ltd., A.I.R. 1960 SC 1980.;