- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
S.N Narula v. Union Of India And Others .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, originally appointed as a Station Master in Northern Railways in 1955 and later serving as a Senior Commercial Manager, faced departmental charges. An enquiry officer found Charge 5 partly proved and Charge 7 proved, while exonerating the appellant on the remaining charges. The disciplinary authority proposed a cut in pension without first hearing the appellant. The case record was then forwarded to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), which advised reducing the appellant’s pension to the minimum and denying gratuity. The disciplinary authority adopted this advice.
The UPSC’s advisory opinion was communicated to the appellant only with the final order, not beforehand. Challenging the punishment, the appellant filed OA No. 1154 of 2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), New Delhi. The CAT found a breach of natural justice, quashed the punishment, and remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority for a reasoned, speaking order within three months. The Union of India filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court, which partially allowed the petition and redirected the case to the CAT. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court via a special leave petition.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the failure to supply the UPSC’s advisory opinion to the appellant before the imposition of punishment violated the principles of natural justice.
- Whether the Delhi High Court was justified in overturning the CAT’s order that had remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The UPSC report, which formed the basis of the punishment, was not disclosed prior to the final decision, depriving the appellant of an opportunity to make an effective representation on the proposed penalty.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent's legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court agreed with the CAT’s determination that withholding the UPSC advisory opinion until after the final order constituted a violation of natural justice. It held that the appellant was entitled to be heard on the punishment proposed, including any recommendations by the UPSC, before the disciplinary authority reached a final decision. Finding no error in the CAT’s approach, the Court concluded that the High Court erred in disturbing the CAT’s order. Consequently, it reinstated the CAT’s directive that the disciplinary authority issue a reasoned, speaking order after granting the appellant an opportunity to submit a representation.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED; judgment of the Delhi High Court set aside.
The disciplinary authority must consider the appellant’s representation (to be filed within two weeks) and pass a detailed, reasoned order within three months. The decision primarily affects the parties by restoring the CAT’s directions; the Court does not articulate broader jurisprudential implications.
Order
1. Leave granted. The appellant was initially appointed as Station Master in the Northern Railways in 1955 and during the relevant time when he was Senior Commercial Manager a charge-sheet was issued to the appellant and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, and the enquiry officer filed report holding that Charge 5 was partly proved and Charge 7 proved. As regards other charges he was exonerated. After considering the report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority proposed a punishment suggesting a suitable cut in the pension and the appellant was not heard on this proposal.
2. Thereafter, the proceedings were sent for opinion of the Union Public Service Commission and the Union Public Service Commission gave an opinion to the effect that the appellant's pension shall be reduced to the minimum and he shall not be granted any gratuity. The disciplinary authority accepted the proposal of the Union Public Service Commission and imposed the said punishment.
3. It is to be noticed that the advisory opinion of the Union Public Service Commission was not communicated to the appellant before he was heard by the disciplinary authority. The same was communicated to the appellant along with final order passed in the matter by the disciplinary authority.
4. The appellant filed OA No. 1154 of 2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi and the Tribunal held that there was violation of the principles of natural justice and the following direction was issued:
“We are of the considered opinion that this order is a non-speaking one and as such we are of the view that the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, we quash the impugned order and remand the case back to the disciplinary authority to pass a detailed reasoned and speaking order within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance with instructions and law on the subject.”
5. This order was challenged by the Union of India by way of writ petition before the High Court of Delhi and by the impugned judgment the High Court interfered with that order. The writ petition was partly allowed and it was directed that the matter be again considered by the Tribunal. Against that order the appellant has come up in appeal by way of special leave petition.
6. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the report of the Union Public Service Commission was not communicated to the appellant before the final order was passed. Therefore, the appellant was unable to make an effective representation before the disciplinary authority as regards the punishment imposed.
7. We find that the stand taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal was correct and the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order. Therefore, we set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and direct that the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant be finally disposed of in accordance with the direction given by the Tribunal in para 6 of the order. The appellant may submit a representation within two weeks to the disciplinary authority and we make it clear that the matter shall be finally disposed of by the disciplinary authority within a period of 3 months thereafter.
8. The appeal is disposed of.
Alert