- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Union Of India And Others v. S.K Kapoor .
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent was dismissed from service on 1-11-2001 after being charge-sheeted for absence without leave. He challenged this dismissal before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, which on 20-7-2004 quashed the dismissal order and directed the disciplinary authority to recommence the proceedings from the stage of supplying a copy of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) report. The appellants filed Special Civil Application No. 7201 of 2005 before the High Court of Gujarat, which upheld the Tribunal’s order on 25-4-2005. The present appeal before the Supreme Court was directed against that High Court judgment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether principles of natural justice require that a copy of the UPSC report be supplied to the charge-sheeted employee before the disciplinary authority relies upon it to impose a penalty.
- Whether the Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. T.V. Patel (2007) 4 SCC 785 dispenses with the need to supply such a report in advance.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments
- The UPSC report had been given to the respondent along with the dismissal order, which they contended satisfied the requirements of natural justice.
- Reliance was placed on Union of India v. T.V. Patel (2007) 4 SCC 785 to argue that this course of action was legally valid.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent’s legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Union of India v. T.V. Patel (2007) 4 SCC 785 | Held that Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution (consultation with UPSC) is not mandatory. | The Court distinguished this case, stating that even if consultation is not mandatory, once the disciplinary authority relies on the UPSC report, natural justice requires supplying it to the employee in advance. |
| S.N. Narula v. Union of India (2011) 4 SCC 591 | Affirmed the obligation to provide the UPSC report to the delinquent officer when it is relied upon. | Used to reinforce the requirement of prior disclosure and to declare that T.V. Patel, which ignored Narula, is per incuriam. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court began by reaffirming the settled principle that any material relied upon in departmental proceedings must be furnished to the employee beforehand. Although Article 320(3)(c) is not mandatory, once the disciplinary authority consults the UPSC and intends to rely on its report, natural justice demands prior disclosure to enable rebuttal.
Addressing the appellants’ reliance on T.V. Patel, the Court noted that paragraph 25 of that judgment merely states the non-mandatory nature of Article 320(3)(c); it does not sanction withholding a relied-upon report. Moreover, T.V. Patel failed to notice the earlier coordinate-bench decision in S.N. Narula, which explicitly required supply of the report. Under the doctrine of precedent, a coordinate bench cannot overrule an earlier decision of equal strength; therefore, T.V. Patel is per incuriam and not authoritative on this point.
The Court concluded that the Tribunal and the High Court correctly set aside the dismissal order because the respondent had not been given the UPSC report before the disciplinary authority relied on it.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Consequently, the High Court’s judgment upholding the Tribunal’s order stands, and the disciplinary authority must recommence proceedings from the stage of supplying the UPSC report to the respondent. The decision reinforces the procedural safeguard that, whenever a disciplinary authority chooses to rely on an advisory body’s report, that report must be disclosed to the employee in advance. No new legal precedent was created, but the Court clarified that T.V. Patel is per incuriam to the extent it conflicts with S.N. Narula.
Order
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 25-4-2005 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No. 7201 of 2005.
2. It appears that the respondent had been charge-sheeted for absence without leave and a dismissal order was passed against him on 1-11-2001. The respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, which by its order dated 20-7-2004 quashed the dismissal order and directed the authorities to proceed from the stage of making available a copy of the report of the Union Public Service Commission.
3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the appellants herein filed a writ petition in the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad being Special Civil Application No. 7201 of 2005, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Hence, this appeal.
4. We have perused the impugned order and find no infirmity in the same.
5. It is a settled principle of natural justice that if any material is to be relied upon in departmental proceedings, a copy of the same must be supplied in advance to the charge-sheeted employee so that he may have a chance to rebut the same.
6. Mr Qadri, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the copy of the report of the Union Public Service Commission was supplied to the respondent employee along with the dismissal order. He submitted that this is valid in view of the decision of this Court in Union of India v. T.V Patel (2007) 4 SCC 785. We do not agree.
7. In the aforesaid decision, it has been observed in SCC para 25 that “the provisions of Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution of India are not mandatory”. We are of the opinion that although Article 320(3)(c) is not mandatory, if the authorities do consult the Union Public Service Commission and rely on the report of the Commission for taking disciplinary action, then the principles of natural justice require that a copy of the report must be supplied in advance to the employee concerned so that he may have an opportunity of rebuttal. Thus, in our view, the aforesaid decision in T.V Patel case (2007) 4 SCC 785 is clearly distinguishable.
8. There may be a case where the report of the Union Public Service Commission is not relied upon by the disciplinary authority and in that case it is certainly not necessary to supply a copy of the same to the employee concerned. However, if it is relied upon, then a copy of the same must be supplied in advance to the employee concerned, otherwise, there will be violation of the principles of natural justice. This is also the view taken by this Court in S.N Narula v. Union of India (2011) 4 SCC 591.
9. It may be noted that the decision in S.N Narula case (2011) 4 SCC 591 was prior to the decision in T.V Patel case (2007) 4 SCC 785. It is well settled that if a subsequent coordinate Bench of equal strength wants to take a different view, it can only refer the matter to a larger Bench, otherwise the prior decision of a coordinate Bench is binding on the subsequent Bench of equal strength. Since, the decision in S.N Narula case (2011) 4 SCC 591 was not noticed in T.V Patel case (2007) 4 SCC 785, the latter decision is a judgment per incuriam. The decision in S.N Narula case (2011) 4 SCC 591 was binding on the subsequent Bench of equal strength and hence, it could not take a contrary view, as is settled by a series of judgments of this Court.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.
Alert