Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. - (1.) The petitioner was working with the Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Limited, Dundahera (Gurgaon). He was charge-sheeted. It was alleged that the petitioner had charged excess amount on account of cartage, conveyance, late sitting and travelling/local transport expenses. It was further alleged that he had been transferred to Muzaffarpur Plant vide order dated July 6, 1983 and had delayed the handing over of charge. After a regular enquiry, the first charge was held to have been proved. The Enquiry Officer found that the second charge was not proved. The punishing authority accepted the finding of the Enquiry Officer and vide order dated May 28,1988 imposed the penalty of "reduction of pay to the lower stage of Rs.1120/- from the existing stage of Rs.1160/- in the time scale of his pay from 1.6.1988 for a period of two years". It was further ordered that on the expiry of the period of two years, "his basic pay will be restored to the stage which he would have normally reached in the scale of pay". The petitioner filed an appeal against this order. It was rejected by the appellate authority and the decision was conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated April 2, 1989. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner approached this court through the present writ petition.
(2.) The primary contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the order of punishment was vitiated as the copy of the enquiry report had not been furnished to him. Reliance in support of this contention was placed on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, AIR 1991 SC 471 . Initially, this matter was referred by us to a Full Bench, ultimately, the Full by its judgment dated December 17, 1992 held that the decision in Mohd. Ramzan's case (supra) is to apply prospectively and as such the petitioner cannot derive any advantage therefrom. Consequently, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was rejected. However, the matter was remitted to the Division Bench for decision on other points.
(3.) Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that from the evidence on record, the charge of financial irregularities levelled against the petitioner cannot be said to have been proved. He has further submitted that the entire action against the petitioner was vitiated by the malafides of respondent No.4.;