JUDGMENT B.M. Lal, C.J. & R.M. Prasad, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16th February, 1994, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The short facts leading to this appeal are as under: 2. The deceased Lakhan Ram was an employee of Central Reserve Police Force and he was posted as a Safai Karamchari (sweeper) at Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Mokameh Ghat. He was dismissed from service by the Additional D.I.G.P., Central Reserve Police Force, Mokameh Ghat, on 16-3-1989, on the charge that on 5-2-1989 he along with one Bijendra Lal entered into the main office after opening the main entry door forcibly and tried to break open the cashier's treasury chest which was kept there with a view to commit theft of cash. After a preliminary enquiry, he was chargesheeted and, in a departmental proceeding he was found guilty and consequently dismissed from service. The disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him in accordance with the provisions of Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Rules') 3. It appears that after challenging the dismissal order invoking Article 226 of the Constitution, during the pendency of the writ application, Lakhan Ram breathed his last and, therefore, his legal representatives i.e. the wife Most. Tara Muni Devi and his son Asharfi Mallik have been substituted in his place who are now appellants before us in this Letters Patent Appeal. 4. The entire disciplinary proceeding including the order of the learned Single Judge is being assailed by the legal representatives of the deceased Lakhan Ram on the ground, inter alia, that no second show cause notice was given to the deceased Lakhan Ram apprising him about the proposed punishment and thus the order of dismissal against the deceased Lakhan Ram vitiates. It appears that this ground is canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellants on the basis of l Clause 6.21 of Chapter VI of the Manual as also on the basis of Rule 27(7) of the Rules, which postulate that after the conclusion of the departmental proceeding, it is incumbent upon the competent authority to give a second show cause before an order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank is passed. 5. Admittedly no second show-cause notice was ever issued to the deceased employee Lakhan Ram. 5. Admittedly no second show-cause notice was ever issued to the deceased employee Lakhan Ram. The provisions of Rule 27(7) of the above said Rules and the provisions of Clause 6.21 of Chapter VI contain the same provision and were in conformity with each other. It is to be noted here that the provisions of Rule 27(7) of the Rules have been deleted vide notification no.R. IX-1/79-Adm-Part II dated 14-1-1980 (GSR 75 dated 26-1-80). Thus by virtue of deletion of the above said provision, the requirement of second show cause notice was dispensed with in the departmental proceeding for punishment of misconduct much before when the punishment was inflicted upon deceased Lakhan Ram. This being so, there was no need to comply with the repealed provisions of the above said Rules or Manual to issue second show cause notice. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has further canvassed that there is rule or no rule; but the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the recent past requires that for such punishment, a second show cause notice is a must and without the same the punishment order is vitiated. This argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is based on the decisions in the case of Union of India and others vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan reported in AIR 1991 S.C., 471 and in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad Vs. B. Karunakar reported in AIR 1994 S.C., 1074, wherein it is ruled by the Apex Court that second show cause notice is to be served. But their Lordships while reviving the requirement of giving second show cause notice have specifically held that this law would be operative prospectively meaning thereby that it would be operative after the date of the judgment in Union of India's case and in Managing Director, ECIL case (supra). 7. Thus, in the instant case the dismissal order against the deceased Lakhan Ram was passed on 16-3-1989 whereas the above referred two decisions of the Apex Court were delivered much thereafter. Thus, the plea is of no avail to the appellants. All other submissions are based on factual matrix, which have no basis, can not be agitated in this Letters Patent Appeal. 8. This being so, no ground is made out for interference in this Appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed.