AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hansaria, C.J.—On a reference being made by a Division Bench on the question whether the ratio of Union of India and others Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, would apply to pending proceeding, the matter has come up before this Bench.
The judgment in Ramzan Khan''s case is of 20-11-1990. Subsequently, in S.P. Viswanathan (I) Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (decided on March 6, 1991) a Bench of two learned Judges held in a petition which had been directly filed under Article 32 of the Constitution that the decision in Ramzan Khan''s case having prospective effect "will not affect the orders passed prior to the date of rendering of the judgment (November 20, 1990) would be clear from paragraph 17 of the judgment". It may be stated that to this decision, Sawant, J. was a party who was also a member of Ramzan Khan''s Bench.
Another judgment of a Division Bench in U.P. Anusuchit Jati Wittya Evam Wikas Nigam Ltd. v. Uma Shankar Seth (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4155 of 1992 rendered on September 9, 1992) has set at rest this point inasmuch as in that case the High Court had set aside the order of dismissal passed on February 2, 1989 on the short ground that the copy of the enquiry report was not furnished, relying on Ramzan Khan''s case. On appeal being preferred, the apex Court observed that the High Court "fell into patent error in quashing the dismissal order".
Shri Das, however, brings to our notice a Constitution Bench decision in Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa and others Vs. G.C. Roy, , in paragraph 46 of which it was stated as below :--
".......we would like to direct that our decision shall only be prospective in operation, which means that this decision shall not entitle any party nor shall it empower any Court to reopen proceedings which have already become final. In other words, the law declared therein shall apply only to pending proceedings."
According to the learned counsel, therefore, even if a decision is said to have prospective application, as was observed in paragraph 17 of Ramzan Khan''s case, the same applies to proceedings pending in the courts. But in view of what has been stated in the aforesaid two decisions, more particularly in U.P. Anusuchit Jati''s case, the question referred to us must be taken to have stood concluded. And so, we answer the reference by stating that the orders of penalty passed on or prior to 20-11-1990 would not be affected because of non-supply of the inquiring officer''s report before passing of the same.
L. Rath, J.
5.I agree.
K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J.
6.I agree.