MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD v. CH. GANDHI

Ex-Capt. K.C. Arora and Another v. State of Haryana and Others 1984 (3) SCR 623 = 1984 (3) SCC 281; State of Gujarat v. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni 1983 (2) SCR 598 = 1983 (3) SCC 33; K. Satwant Singh v. The State of Punjab 1960 SCR 89 = 1960 AIR 266; Smt. Maya Rani Punj v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi 1985 (3) Suppl. SCR 827 = 1986 AIR 293; Tiwari Kanhaiyalal etc. v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi 1975 (3) SCR 927 = 1975 AIR 902 - referred to.

2.2 It is worth noting that under the unamended rule, there were three other categories of punishments, namely, compulsory retirement, removal from service and dismissal from service. The said punishments have been maintained in the new rules. In the case at hand, the disciplinary proceeding was initiated by serving a charge- sheet for the purpose of imposition of a major penalty. In this backdrop, it would be difficult to say that the employee had the vested right to be imposed a particular punishment as envisaged under the unamended rules. The rule making authority thought it apposite to amend the rules to introduce a different kind of punishment which is lesser than the maximum punishment or, for that matter, lesser punishment than that of compulsory retirement from service. Rule 9(vii) was only dealing with reduction or reversion but issuance of any other direction was not a part of it. It has come by way of amendment. The same being a lesser punishment than the maximum, is imposable and the disciplinary authority has not committed any error by imposing the said punishment, regard being had to the nature of charges. [para 42 and 50] [50-F-G; 54-F-H; 55-A-B] A B C D E F G H GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. v. CH. GANDHI 23 the amending Rules, does not obliterate the rights of the parties as if they never existed. A substituted provision is the resultant factor of the amendment in the Rules and it shall guide the consequences that follow from the amended Rules. The amended Rule despite having been substituted has no retrospective effect. That apart, the notification uses the phraseology "shall be substituted" which clearly indicates the fact that the amended Rule is prospective. [para 27 and 33] [38-D-E; 42-E]