General Insurance Corporation of India and Others vs S.R. Kalra, Assistant Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Another

R.S. Mongia, J.—This is a Letters Patent Appeal on behalf of the General Insurance Corporation of India and others, against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court who had allowed the writ petition of Shri S. R. Kalra, now respondent'' who was the writ-petitioner in the writ petition.

An order of punishment of reversion was passed against Shri S. R. Kalra on 8th June, 1990 after holding a departmental enquiry As the report of the Enquiry Officer was not supplied to him before the order of punishment was passed, the same was set aside by a learned Single Judge in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India and others Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, . The learned Single Judge relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Madan Lal v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab 1991 (5) S. L. R. 430. to hold that the law laid down in Mohd. Ramzan''s case (supra) would be applicable to cases which were sub-judice and pending in some Courts, irrespective of the fact that the order of punishment was passed prior to the judgment in Mohd. Ramzan''s case (supra).

In C. W. P. No. 5567 of 1989, the correctness of the Division Bench judgment in Madan Lal''s case (supra) was doubted. By a judgment of even date in the said petition, i.e. C. W, P. No 5567 of 1989, [ since reported as D.L. Katyal Accounts Executive Vs. The Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited and Others, -Editor ] we have held that the law laid down in Madan Lal''s case (supra) is no more a correct law in view of later judgments of the Supreme Court, holding that the application of law laid down in Mohd. Ramzan''s case (supra) is prospective.

The writ petition had been allowed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the copy of the enquiry report had not been supplied to the petitioner, which, according to Mohd. Ramzan''s case (supra) was the requirement under the Rules of natural justice. There is no denying the fact that the order of punishment against the petitioner was passed prior to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Ramzan''s case (supra). Since, it has been held that the law laid down in Mohd. Ramzan''s case (supra) would be applicable prospectively and the order of punishment passed prior to the judgment in Mohd. Ramzan''s case (supra) cannot be assailed on that ground, we have no option but to accept the appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

The learned counsel for the respondent (writ petitioner) submitted that there was other points also in the writ petition which were not gone into by the learned Single Judge because of the view he had taken in the matter on point of non-supply of the copy of the enquiry report to the writ petitioner. According to him, the case should be remitted back to the learned Single Judge to decide the other points. We find substance in the submission. Consequently, the case is remitted back to the learned Single Judge to decide the other points raised in the writ petition.

Before parting with the judgment, we may observe that when this Letters Patent Appeal was initially admitted on 17th March, 1992 the admitting Bench had stayed the operation of the judgment of the learned Single Judge. However, the stay order was vacated on 28th April, 1992. Consequently, in obedience to the judgment of the learned Single Judge a promotion order was passed by the appellant in May, 1992, promoting the writ petitioner. Since, we are allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge ipso facto, the order passed by the appellant in May, 1992, which was in obedience to the judgment of the learned Single Judge promoting the petitioner, would also fall.