Constitution of India, 1950: Article 311 (2)-First proviso (As amended by Forty Second Amendment) Delinquent Employee Inquiry-Inquiry Officer not Disciplinary Authority-Right of Employee to receive copy of Inquiry Officer's report before disciplinary authority arrives at its conchisions as to guilt or innocence of employee-Employee held entitled to report-Denial of Report is denial of reasonable opportunity to employee to prove innocence-Rules denying report are against principles of natural justice-Report D should be supplied even if rules do not permit-Report should be given not withstanding the nature of punishment Failure of employee to ask for report is not waiver.

Failure to supply Report-Effect of Distinction should be made where non-furnishing has caused prejudice to employee and where it has E not-Whether in fact prejudice has been caused depends on facts of each case.

Genesis of the law on the subject of furnishing the report of the Inquiry officer authority to the delinquent employee-Referred to Effect of 42nd Amendment explained

Article 141-Supreme Court Power to make the law laid down prospective in operation-Doctrine of prospective overruling.

Law laid down in Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case-Held applicable to all employees in all establishments whether Government or non-Govemment Gpublic or private Rule in Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case is applicable prupectively-Only Exception is where the rules themselves provide for supply of copy of report to employers Grant of relief by Supreme Court to parties in Ramzan Khan's case held per incuriam

By an order dated 5th August, 1991 passed in Managing Director,

Electronic Corporation of India v. B. Kanonakar, J.T. 1992 (3) S.C. 605, a three Judge Bench of this Court referred that matter for being placed  before a larger bench, as the Bench found a conflict in the two decisions of this Court, viz., Kailash Chander Asthana etc. etc. v. State of U.P and Ors etc. etc., [1988] 3 S.C.C. 600 and Union of India and Ors. v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, [1991] 1 S.C.C. 588. Accordingly that matter along with other connected matters were heard by the Constitution Bench on the question whether the Report of the Inquiry Officer/Authority who/which is appointed by the Disciplinary Authority to hold an inquiry into the charges against the delinquent employee, is required to be furnished to the employee to enable him to make proper representation to the disciplinary authority before such authority arrives at its finding with regard to the guilt or otherwise of the employee and the punishment, if any, to be  awarded to him. Disposing the matters, this Court