The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of Rule 32 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and the advisory jurisdiction of UPSC in disciplinary matters, as well as the requirement to supply advice received from UPSC along with the order levying penalty.

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. A common question of law arises for consideration in the three above captioned writ petitions. With one additional point urged in W.P.(C) No.6156/2012 pertaining to the reasons to be recorded by the Disciplinary Authority while levying penalty if it agrees with the report of the Inquiry Officer. Lest there be a confusion with reference to the record of this Court we may note at the outset that after arguments were heard on July 11, 2013 and matter was reserved for judgment, the order dated July 11, 2013 wrongly records the writ number in which the additional point was urged. The recording in the order that the additional point was urged in W.P.(C) No.6157/2012 is incorrect. The additional point was urged in W.P.(C) No.6156/2012.

2. The common point in all the three writ petitions pertains to whether advice obtained from UPSC by the Competent Authority before levying penalty was required to be supplied to the charged officer when report of the Inquiry Officer was forwarded to him and not along with the order levying penalty.

3. In a short decision, which incidentally does not note Rule 32 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, decided on January 30, 2004, but reported in the year 2011, as (2011) 4 SCC 591 S.N. Narula Vs. UOI & Ors. a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the advisory opinion obtained from UPSC had to be communicated to the charged officer before the Disciplinary Authority inflicted the punishment and not after inflicting the punishment. In other words the requirement would be to forward advice received from UPSC along with the report of the inquiry while seeking response of the charged officer to the report of the Inquiry Officer.

4. In a reasoned decision, taking note of Rule 32 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and noting the decision reported as AIR 1957 SC 912 State of U.P. Vs. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava which considered Article 320 of the Constitution of India, reported as (2007) 4 SCC 785 UOI & Anr. Vs. T.V. Patel, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that advice received from UPSC was not to be sent to the charged officer when report of the Inquiry Officer was forwarded for his response and that as per the mandate of Rule 32 of the CCS (CCA) Pension, 1965 it would be sufficient compliance with law that the advice received from UPSC was sent along with a copy of the order levying penalty passed by the Competent Authority.

5. Probably for the reason the earlier decision in S.N. Narula’s case (supra) was not published when T.V. Patel’s case was decided on April 19, 2007 the attention of the Bench which decided T.V. Patel’s case was not drawn to the decision in S.N. Narula’s case.

6. Deciding Civil Appeal No.5341/2006 on March 16, 2011, an opinion reported as (2011) 4 SCC 589 UOI & Ors. Vs. S.K. Kapoor, noting the conflicting destinations reached by two co-ordinate Benches of the Supreme Court in S.N. Narula’s case (supra) and T.V. Patel’s case (supra) a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court observed that it being well-settled that if a subsequent Co-ordinate Bench of equal strength wants to differ with a view taken earlier on it has to refer the matter to a Larger Bench otherwise the prior decision of the Co-ordinate Bench has to be treated as binding on subsequent Bench of equal strength.

7. Only on aforesaid reasoning in S.K. Kapoor’s case (supra), law declared in T.V. Patel’s case was not followed.8. In the three impugned decisions the Tribunal has applied the law declared in S.N. Narula’s case.

9. Rule 32 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which deals with supply of copy of advice received from UPSC reads as under:-“32. Supply of copy of Commission’s advice – Whenever the Commission is consulted as provided in these Rules, a copy of the advice by the Commission and where such advice has not been accepted, also a brief statement of the reasons for such non-acceptance, shall be furnished to the government servant concerned along with a copy of the order passed in the case by t