Managing Director, Electronic Corporation of India Vs. B. Karunakar - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
.....act, 1963. nature of remedy under: [k.g.balakrishnan, c.j. & p.sathasivam & j.m.panchal,jj] held, it is a complete code by itself. nature of remedy provided in the act implies that legislature intended it to be a complete code by itself, which alone should govern matters provided for by the act. section 29(2) :[k.g.balakrishnan, c.j. & p.sathasivam & j.m.panchal,jj] exclusion of applicability of the 1963 act - express exclusion of limitation act in local or special law - held, even in the absence of express exclusion, court can examine extent of exclusion of limitation act by a special law based on the provisions or the nature of the subject matter and scheme of the special law. hence, applicability of the limitation act is to be judged from the terms of the special law (here,..........in the later case it was observed that 'we have not been shown any decision of a coordinate or a larger bench of this court taking this view...'. in view of this seeming conflict as to the entitlement of a copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent officer we consider that it is necessary to refer this matter to a larger bench.2. the special leave is granted only on this question. the papers may be placed before the chief justice for constitution of a larger bench.3. since the matter is likely to take a long time for disposal of the matter, any stay order would prejudicially effect the interest of the respondent in whose favour there is an order of reinstatement with liberty reserved for continuing the inquiry. we, therefore, direct that respondent be reinstated in service within a.....

Judgment:
ORDER

K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.

1. In Kailash Chander Asthana v. State of U.P. : (1988)IILLJ219SC it has 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. But in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan : (1991)ILLJ29SC another bench of three Judges had held to the contrary. In the later case it was observed that 'we have not been shown any decision of a coordinate or a larger bench of this Court taking this view...'. In view of this seeming conflict as to the entitlement of a copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent officer we consider that it is necessary to refer this matter to a larger bench.

2. The special leave is granted only on this question. The papers may be placed before the Chief Justice for Constitution of a larger bench.

3. Since the matter is likely to take a long time for disposal of the matter, any stay order would prejudicially effect the interest of the respondent in whose favour there is an order of reinstatement with liberty reserved for continuing the inquiry. We, therefore, direct that respondent be reinstated in service within a month from today with the payment of one half of the back wages.