Judgment

KASLIWAL, J.:- Delay condoned.

2. Special leave granted.

2A. The respondent C. L. Verma was an employee of Western Railway, Church Gate, Bombay. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 30-9-1983. He was dismissed from Railway service with effect from 29-8-1985 by the disciplinary authority. An appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed by the President of India vide order dated 21-8-1986. The respondent challenged his dismissal in the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal by an order dated 8-8-1991 set aside the order of dismissal on the ground that the respondent was not supplied the copy of the Enquiry Officers report. The Tribunal placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (1991) 1 SCC 588. The Tribunal considered the effect of the observations made in Mohd. Ramzans case (supra) that the said decision shall have prospective application and no punishment imposed shall be open to challenge on this ground. The Tribunal in this regard held that no inference can be drawn from the observations made by the Honble SC in Ramzan Khans case (supra) that all the pending matters will also abate. The Tribunal further held as under :-

"Thus all the pending matters which were open for adjudication and would be so open after the decision in Ramzan Khans case (supra) would be adjudicated upon not having become final and would be thus within the ambit of plural judgments would have prospective effect used in Ramzan Khans case (supra)."

The Tribunal further clarified that this decision may not preclude the disciplinary authority from reviving the proceeding and continuing with it in accordance with law from the stage of supply of the enquiry report in cases where dismissal or removal was the punishment.

3. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the Union of India has come in appeal before this Court.

4. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. In para 17 of the judgment of Mohd. Ramzan Khans case (1991 (1) SCC 588) (supra) it was held as under: -

"There have been several decisions in different High Courts which, following the Forty-second Amendment, have taken the view that it is no longer necessary to furnish a copy of the inquiry report to delinquent officers. Even on some occasions this Court has taken that view. Since we have reached a different conclusion the judgments in the different High Courts taking the contrary view must be taken to be no longer laying down good law. We have not been shown any decision of a co-ordinate or a Larger Bench of this Court taking this view. Therefore, the conclusion to the contrary reached by any two-Judge Bench in this Court will also no longer be taken to be laying down good law, but this shall have prospective application and no punishment imposed shall be open to challenge on this ground."

5. After the decision in Mohd. Ramzan Khans case (1991 (1) SCC 588), the matter came up for consideration again before a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Managing Director, Electronic Corporation of India v. B. Karunakar (1992) 3 JT (SC) 605. In this case, notice was taken of an earlier decision of this Court in Kailash Chander Asthana v. State of U.P, (1988) 2 JT (SC) 291 wherein it had been observed by a Bench of three-Judges that the question of furnishing a copy of the report of enquiry in disciplinary proceedings held after Forty-second Amendment does not arise. This Court therefore, held that there was a seeming conflict as to the entitlement of a copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent officer in between the cases of Kailash Chander Asthana and Mohd. Ramzan Khan and as such it was considered necessary to refer this matter to a larger Bench. This Court, therefore, in B. Karunakars case (supra) granted special leave on this question and directed the papers to be placed before the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench. This Court in B. Karunakars case also gave the following directions:

"Since the matter i