IMPORTANT POINT
The provisions of Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution of India are not mandatory and they do not confer any rights on the public servant so that the absence of consultation or any irregularity in consultation process or furnishing a copy of the advice tendered by the UPSC, if any, does not afford the delinquent government servant a cause of action in a court of law.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW — CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 — Rules 3(1)(i), (ii) and (iii), 15 and 32 — Constitution of India — Article 320(3)(c) — Disciplinary Proceedings — Non supply of a copy of advice tendered by UPSC — Effect of — Respondent functioning as SDO (Phone) — Allegations against him of providing telephone connection in contravention of P & T Manual thereby causing huge avoidable financial loss to the Department — Inquiry Officer submitted its report holding that charges were not proved — Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the report and sought advice of Union Public Service Commission — Considering advice of UPSC it imposed a penalty of reduction of pay by one stage — A copy of advice obtained from UPSC was also sent along with the final order of penalty — On challenge, Tribunal set aside penalty imposed on applicant as copy of UPSC advice was not made available to the applicant — Appeal — Whether a copy of advice tendered by UPSC is to be furnished along with the order of penalty or before passing of an order imposing final penalty — (No).
Held : In view of the law settled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Srivastava (supra) we hold that the provisions of Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution of India are not mandatory and they do not confer any rights on the public servant so that the absence of consultation or any irregularity in consultation process or furnishing a copy of the advice tendered by the UPSC, if any, does not afford the delinquent government servant a cause of action in a court of law. (Para 22)

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

The provisions of Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution of India are not mandatory and do not create enforceable rights for public servants. Absence of consultation or irregularities in the consultation process, including the non-supply of advice from the UPSC, do not constitute a cause of action in a court of law for the delinquent government servant (!) .
When disciplinary proceedings involve the advice of the UPSC, the advice is considered advisory and not binding on the Disciplinary Authority. The rules specify that a copy of the advice must be furnished to the government servant along with the final order if the advice is accepted, or along with a brief statement of reasons if not accepted (!) (!) .
The requirement to supply a copy of the UPSC's advice to the government servant is mandatory when the advice is considered in the decision-making process. However, the absence of such a copy does not automatically invalidate the disciplinary action if the advice was not made available before the final order (!) .
The constitutional provisions do not guarantee a public servant any enforceable right to the consultation process or the advice tendered by the UPSC. Such provisions are meant to ensure independent advice but do not entitle the public servant to judicial remedies solely on procedural grounds related to consultation (!) (!) .
The relevant rules governing disciplinary proceedings, including the supply of advice and the procedure for imposing penalties, are procedural in nature. Non-compliance with these rules, such as not providing a copy of the UPSC advice, can be grounds for judicial review, but the ultimate validity of the disciplinary action depends on whether other legal requirements have been fulfilled (!) (!) .
The legal framework emphasizes that the consultation with the UPSC and the advice given are not binding and do not confer rights on the public servant. The order of penalty can be valid even if the advice was not supplied beforehand, provided other procedural safeguards have been observed (!) (!) .
The courts have clarified that irregularities in the consultation process, including non-supply of advice, do not automatically void disciplinary actions. Such procedural lapses are to be considered in context, and the primary focus remains on whether the overall process was fair and in accordance with law (!) .
In cases where the advice was not supplied or the process was irregular, courts often remand the matter back to the tribunal or authority for re-evaluation, ensuring that procedural requirements are met without necessarily invalidating the entire disciplinary process (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

These points collectively highlight that while procedural fairness, including adherence to rules regarding consultation and advice, is important, procedural lapses such as non-supply of advice do not automatically invalidate disciplinary proceedings or orders, provided the core principles of fairness and lawfulness are maintained.

JUDGMENT

H.K. Sema, J. — Leave granted.

2. These appeals preferred by the Union of India arise out of a common question of facts and law and they are being disposed of this common order. The facts are identical. For the sake of brevity we are taking facts from S.L.P (C) No. 11651 of 2005.

3. The facts in compendium are as follows:

The respondent was functioning as SDO (Phone) at Navsari Telephone Exchange. He was found to have been involved in providing telephone connection in contravention of the P & T Manual thereby causing huge avoidable financial loss to the Department. A memorandum and the article of charges framed against the respondent are coined in identical in language. A memorandum dated 30.06.1997 along with the substance of imputation of conduct was served on the respondent.

4. The statement of article of charge framed against the respondent are as follows:-

”That the said Shri T.V. Patel while functioning as SDOP, Navsari, during the period 1996-96, deliberately provided seven telephone connections from Navsari Telephone Exchange to subscribers of Munsad Village falling within the local area of Ugat Telephone Exchange, with ulterior motive and in contravention of Paras 11(A) & (B) of P&T Manual Vol.XII, Part-I; and the connections thus irregularly provided, had to be got closed by the Telecom District Manager, Valsad. The said Shri T.V. Patel thereby caused a huge avoidable loss to the Department by incurring unnecessary expenditure towards stores and labour. Thus by his above acts, the said Shri T.V. Patel committed grave misconduct, failed to maintain absolute integrity, exhibited lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant, thereby contravening Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.”

5. List of documents and prosecution witnesses sought to be relied during the inquiry were also supplied along with the article of charge.

6. During the inquiry the respondent was given an opportunity of fair hearing and the Inquiry Officer submitted its report holding that the charges were not proved. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the report and issued a notice to the respondent providing the reasons for disagreement and calling upon the respondent to make representation, if any, by its order dated 1.4.1999. On 4.5.1999, the respondent made a representation to the said notice. This was rejected.

7. The Disciplinary Authority, thereafter, sought the advice of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and after considering the advice of the UPSC imposed a penalty of reduction of pay by one stage in the time scale of pay till 30.11.2001, without cumulative effect by an order dated 15.11.2000. A copy of the advice obtained from UPSC was also sent along with the final order of penalty.

8. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed O.A.No.96 of 2001 challenging the final order passed on 15.11.2000 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Ahmedbad Bench on various grounds. The Tribunal after considering various grounds urged before it, set aside the order dated 15.11.2000 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the penalty. One of the grounds, which persuaded the Tribunal to come to the aforesaid conclusion, is recorded in paragraph 12 of the judgment:

“We also note that the copy of UPSC advice was not made available to the applicant. Under the circumstances we quash and set aside of the penalty imposed on the applicant and direct the respondents to take a decision after supplying a copy of the UPSC report and having regard to principles stated in para 10 & 11 above. The OA is allowed with these directions. No costs.”

9. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant unsuccessfully filed Special Civil Application being No.17027 of 2004 before the High Court urging various grounds. The High Court dismissed the Special Civil Application on the sole ground that a copy of advice tendered by the UPSC was not supplied to the delinquent officer to enable him to represent.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 542

Cases Referred (4)