Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, N.V. RAMANA, JJ.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
R.P.SINGH – RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL No.6717 OF 2008
Decided On : 22-05-2014
(2007) 4 SCC 785; (2011) 4 SCC 589; (2011) 4 SCC 591 – Relied upon
AIR 1993 SC 1197; AIR 1957 SC 912 – Referred
(b) Binding precedent – A law declared by a Division Bench of Supreme Court is binding on subsequent Division Benches.
(1989) 2 SCC 754 – Relied upon
AIR 1995 SC 1480; 1989 MPLJ 20; (1976) 4 SCC 622; (2002) 4 SCC 234 – Referred
(c) Per incurium – S.N. Narula was a binding precedent – Later, T.V. Patel was rendered in ignorance of the said binding authority – T.V. Patel held per incurium S.N. Narula. (Para 19)
(1988) 2 SCC 602; AIR 2011 SC 312 : ( 2011) 1 SCC 694 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The respondent while serving as an Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) was proceeded in a departmental proceeding. Enquiry officer found charges not proved. Disciplinary Authority disagreed and after obtaining advice of UPSC, passed an order of punishment and communicated the same to the respondent along with the advice of UPSC.
The punishment was assailed before CAT on the ground that advice of UPSC was not furnished before imposing punishment. The petition was dismissed.
The High Court set aside the decision of CAT and directed the appellant to furnish UPSC advice to respondent and consider his representation thereon.
Finding of the Court:
Principles of natural justice demand that advice of UPSC should be furnished to the delinquent before imposing punishment.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The advice of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) must be furnished to the delinquent employee before any punishment is imposed. This is a principle of natural justice that ensures fair opportunity for the employee to respond to the advice received (!) (!) .
When the UPSC's advice is sought and accepted, it is mandatory to communicate this advice to the employee prior to finalizing the punishment, allowing the employee to make a representation (!) .
The relevant rules specify that a copy of the UPSC's advice, along with the order passed, should be provided to the government servant. This facilitates transparency and the opportunity to respond (!) .
The legal framework emphasizes that the principles of natural justice require the employee to be given an opportunity to rebut or comment on the advice before any disciplinary action is finalized (!) (!) .
The decision clarifies that non-supply of the UPSC advice before imposition of punishment can be a violation of natural justice, especially when the advice is relied upon in the disciplinary proceedings (!) .
Recent procedural guidelines have been issued to ensure that the process of seeking, examining, and communicating the UPSC advice is transparent and provides adequate opportunity for the employee to respond (!) (!) .
The courts have held that the failure to communicate the UPSC advice in a timely manner can lead to the order of punishment being set aside, and the disciplinary proceedings may need to be reassessed with the employee being given a chance to make a representation (!) .
Overall, the legal principles reinforce that fairness in disciplinary proceedings necessitates that the employee is informed of the advice received from the UPSC before any final decision on punishment is made, ensuring the employee's right to a fair hearing is upheld (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed explanation or specific legal advice.
JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, J.
Calling in question the legal defensibility of the judgment and order dated 19.01.2007 passed by the High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C)No.16104 of 2004 whereby it has annulled the judgment and order dated 28.06.2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short “the tribunal”) in O.A.No.1977 of 2003 and the order dated 19.08.2004 declining to entertain the review, the present appeal has been preferred by special leave.
2. The respondent while serving as an Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) was proceeded in a departmental proceeding in respect of two charges which read as follows:
"(a) 540 bags of cement were got issued for the above stated work from the Central Stores on 31.3.97. The said Shri R.P.Singh allowed Shri N.K.Sarin, Junior Engineer to issue 89 bags of cement within 24 hours of receipt of the cement from the Central Stores without giving any written permission to the Junior Engineer and without authenticating the said issue of cement, thereby violating the instructions contained in Para 3(d) of memorandum No.DGW/CON/67 dated 6.5.94.
(b) Out of the above stated lot of 540 bags of cement of "Superplus Jaypee" brand, 82 bags of cement were found short, which had been pilfered with connivance of the said Shri R.P.Singh, Assistant Engineer."
3. As the delinquent officer refuted the charges, an Inquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the inquiry and in the inquiry, he found the charges levelled against the delinquent officer were not proven and, accordingly, he submitted the Inquiry Report. The disciplinary authority after expressing the disagreement, called for a representation from the respondent communicating the Inquiry Report as well as the opinion for disagreement requiring him to submit his explanation. The respondent submitted his explanation and thereafter the disciplinary authority sought advice from the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) by proposing to impose penalty of reduction of pay by two stages in the time scale of pay of the charged officer for a period of two years without cumulative effect. The UPSC vide letter No. F.3/144/2002-SI dated 20.11.02 gave the advice to impose penalty of reduction of pay by two stages in the time scale of pay of the charged officer for a period of two years without cumulative effect. After obtaining the advice from the UPSC, the disciplinary authority accepted the same, passed an order of punishment and communicated the same to the respondent along with the advice of UPSC.
4. The said order of punishment was assailed by the respondent before the tribunal on many a ground and the principal ground propounded was that the advice of the UPSC was not furnished to him before imposing the penalty and, therefore, there had been violation of principles of natural justice. The tribunal negatived the said stand on the ground that no prejudice was caused to him.
5. Being dissatisfied with the said order, the respondent preferred the writ petition and the High Court placing reliance mainly on the decision in State Bank of India and others vs. D.C.Aggarwal and another[AIR 1993 SC 1197] came to hold that non-supply of the copy of advice of UPSC at the pre-decisional stage did tantamount to violation of principles of natural justice for making effective representation. It further observed that non-supply of such material could amount to denial of fair opportunity of being heard. Being of this opinion, the High Court directed as follows:-
"We direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to make his representation in respect of the UPSC advice, which was made available to him along with the order dated 28.1.2003 imposing punishment. The representation of the petitioner be duly considered and the Disciplinary Authority to take a decision afresh, taking into account the representation with regard to the disciplinary proceedings within a period of two months."
6. We have heard Mr.K.Radhakrishnan, lear
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
