Judgment

KULDIP SINGH, J. - Special leave granted.

2. Bhopal Singh, respondent herein, was working as a security guard in the Central Industrial Security Force. As a result of disciplinary proceedings, he was removed from service by the-order dated June 16,1982. Appeal, filed by him, against the said order was dismissed in July 1983. He challenged the order of removal by way of a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court. A learned single Judge of the High Court by his judgment dated July 8, 1991 allowed the writ petition on the ground that he was not served with a copy of the inquiry report during the disciplinary proceedings. The learned Judge relied upon the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588. Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force challenged the order of the learned Judge by way of appeal before the High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment dated March 12, 1992, dismissed the appeal and upheld the findings of the learned single Judge. This appeal by way of special leave is against the judgment of the High Court.

3. It was contended before the Division Bench of the High Court that the ratio in Mohd. Ramzan Khans case (AIR 1991 SC 471) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case because the requirement of supplying the copy of the inquiry report has been made operative by this Court in Mohd. Ramzan Khans case prospectively. It was contended that the judgment in Mohd. Ramzan Khans case was delivered by this Court on November 20, 1990, whereas the order of removal in respect of the respondent was passed on June 16, 1982. The argument was rejected by the Division Bench. N. P. Singh, C.J. (as brother N. P. Singh then was) who spoke for the Division Bench held as under:

"If the law which has been declared by the judgment in question, was to operate prospectively and was not to invalidate the order of removal and dismissal which had been passed against the delinquents concerned on dates prior to the date of the aforesaid judgment of the SC, there was no occasion to quash the orders of removal and dismissal by allowing the appeals in question. According to me, it is not possible to hold that the law declared by the SC in respect of the furnishing an inquiry report to a delinquent before an order of removal or dismissal is passed shall not be applicable to orders of removal or dismissal which have been challenged and are pending consideration in appeals before authorities or before different High Courts or SC and which have not attained finality."

4. Mohd. Ramzan Khans case (AIR 1991 SC 471) has since been considered by a Constitution-Bench of this Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar (Civil Appeal No. 3056 of 1991 with connected cases) decided on October 1, 1993 (reported in 1993 (6) JT (SC) 1). The Bench formulated seven questions for consideration. Questions Nos. VI and VII are as under:-

"(vi). From what date the law requiring furnishing of the report, should come into operation?

(vii) Since the decision in Ramzan Khans case (AIR 1991 SC 471) (supra) has made the law laid down there prospective in operation, i.e., applicable to the orders of punishment passed after 20th November, 1990 on which day the said decision was delivered, this question in turn also raises another question, viz., what was the law prevailing prior to 20th November, 1990?"

5. The relevant findings of the Bench are reproduced as under (1993 (6) JT (SC) I at pp. 29-30):-

"It will, therefore, have to be held that notwithstanding the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal in H. C. Patels case (1985 (2) 26 Guj LR 1385) (supra) and of the Gujarat High Court in Premnath K. Sharmas case (1988 (3) Serv LJ 449) (supra) and of the other courts and tribunals, the law was in an unsettled condition till at least 20th November, 1990 on which day the Mohd. Ramzan Khans case (AIR 1991 SC 47 ) was decided. Since the said decision made the law expressly prospective