IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.1435 of 1996 Date of Decision:-26.09.2008 Punjab State Electricity Board & others ...Appellants/Petitioners V E R S U S Sohan Lal .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. R. C. Chatrath, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. RAJIVE BHALLA J. (ORAL) The Punjab State Electricity Board challenges judgments and decrees dated 17.08.1988 and 9.09.1993, passed by Addl. Senior Subordinate Judge, Ludhiana and Addl. District Judge, Ludhiana, decreeing the suit filed by the respondent and dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants, respectively. The plaintiff-respondent was served a charge-sheet on 08.01.1985. As the reply to the charge-sheet was unsatisfactory, the appellants appointed an Enquiry Officer. Upon conclusion of the enquiry, respondent was awarded a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The suspension period was ordered to be treated as leave of the kind due. The respondent filed a civil suit challenging the legality of these orders. The appellants contested the suit by denying the averments in the plaint and asserting that departmental proceedings and the order of punishment do not suffer from any illegality. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:- R.S.A. No.1435 of 1996 -2- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the Civil Court at Ludhiana has got no territorial jurisdiction?OPP 3. Relief. After considering the pleadings, the trial court decreed the suit by holding the order of punishment to be null and void for failure to supply a copy of the enquiry report and to serve a second show cause notice. Reliance was placed upon Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, 1991 (1) SLR 111. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the appellants filed an appeal. The Addl. District Judge, Ludhiana affirmed the findings returned by trial court and dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the appellants submits that the ratio in Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case (supra) operates prospectively from 1991, and does not apply to the order of punishment passed on 3rd September, 1987. The courts below therefore erred in setting aside the punishment orders by placing reliance upon Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case. Counsel for the respondent, however, submits that Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case was reconsidered by a Constitution Bench in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad vs. B. Karunakar etc, AIR 1994 SC 1074 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the ratio in Mohd. Ramjan Khan's case (supra) applies to orders of punishment passed after 20th November, 1990 and challenge to orders passed prior thereto would have to be determined in accordance with law in existence on the date of the order of punishment. It is submitted that on 3rd September, 1987, Regulation 12 of Punjab State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment and Appeal R.S.A. No.1435 of 1996 -3- Rules), 1971, which provides that the punishing authority shall supply a copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent official was in force and as admittedly, a copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the respondent the courts below, did not commit any error in setting aside the order of punishment. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. The substantial question of law that arises for adjudication is: 1. "Whether the order of punishment is illegal for failure of the appellants to serve a copy of the enquiry report along with the show cause notice in accordance with Regulation 12 of Punjab State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment and Appeal Rules), 1971 upon the respondent?" The ratio in Mohd. Ramzan's case (supra) applies prospectively and would, therefore, not apply to the facts of the instant case. This however, would not absolve the department from complying with rules/regulations in force on the date of the punishment order. Reference in this regard may be made to Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad (supra). "It will, therefore, have to be held that notwithstanding the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal in Premnath K. Sharma's case (1988(2) ASLJ 449) (supra) and of the Gujarat High Court in H.G. Patel's case (1985 (2) 26 Guj LR 1385) (supra) and of the other courts and tribunals, the law was in an unsettled R.S.A. No.1435 of 1996 -4- condition till at least 20th November, 1990 on which day the Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case was decided. Since the said decision made the law expressly prospective in operation the law laid down they will apply only to those orders of punishment which are passed by the disciplinary authority after 20th November, 1990. This is so, notwithstanding the ultimate relief which was granted there which, as pointed out earlier, was per incuriam. No order of punishment passed before that date would be challengeable on the ground that there was a failure to furnish the inquiry report to the delinquent employee. The proceedings pending in courts/tribunals in respect of orders of punishment passed prior to 20th November, 1990 will have to be decided according to the law that prevailed prior to the said date and not according to the law laid down in Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case (AIR 1991 SC 471) (supra). This is so notwithstanding the view taken by the different benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal or by the High Courts or by this Court in R. K. Vashist's case, (1993 Supp (I) SCC 431) (supra). The law, therefore, that would govern orders of punishment passed prior to Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case, are the rules and regulations in R.S.A. No.1435 of 1996 -5- operation on the relevant dates. In the instant case, the order of punishment was passed on 3rd September, 1987. Admittedly, when the order of punishment was passed Regulation 12 of the Punjab State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment and Appeal Rules) 1971 was in force. Regulation 12 of the Punjab State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment and Appeal Rules) 1971 reads as follows:- "Orders made by the punishing authority shall be communicated to the employee who shall also be supplied with a copy of the report of the enquiry, if any, held by the punishing authority and a copy of its findings on each article of charge, or where the punishing authority is not the inquiring authority, a copy of the report of the enquiry authority and a statement of the findings of the punishing authority together with brief reasons for its disagreement, if any, with the findings of inquiring authority (unless they have already been supplied to him)." Regulation 12 of the Punjab State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment and Appeal Rules) 1971 that requires the punishing authority to serve a copy of the enquiry report upon the delinquent employee, was admittedly not followed. In a judgment reported as 1997(3) S.C.T. 361 Punjab State Electricity Board V/s. Narinder Singh and while answering a similar query, relating to the appellant-Board, a Division Bench of this Court held that the legal position obtainining prior to 20.11.1990, mandatorily required the board to serve a copy of the enquiry report, before proceeding to pass an order of punishment. It would, therefore, have to be R.S.A. No.1435 of 1996 -6- held that the order of punishment could not have been passed without serving a copy of the enquiry report upon the delinquent official. Failure to do so, renders the order of punishment void. The question of law is answered accordingly. In view of the admitted failure of the appellants to serve a copy of the enquiry report upon the respondent and the admitted violation of Regulation 12 of the Punjab State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment and Appeal Rules) 1971 by the board, the courts below rightly decreed the suit and dismissed the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed, with liberty, however to the appellants to proceed afresh after serving a copy of the enquiry report upon the respondent. No order as to costs. (RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE September 26, 2008 ashish/sk