$~43 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 13864/2006 MANISH KUMAR SACHAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Ms. Rajul Jain, Ms. Rhea Verma and Ms. Poorvi Rewalia, Advs.

versus U.O.I & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Balendu Shekhar, CGSC with Mr. Krishna Chaitanya and Mr. Rajkumar Maurya, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT (ORAL)

% 02.05.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. The issue in controversy in this writ petition is as to whether the punishment of withholding of two increments in the time scale of pay for a period of two years without cumulative effect could be sustained. 2. Mr Ankur Chhibber, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has restricted his submission to the plea that the impugned order of punishment stands vitiated as it was issued on the basis of an advice received from the Union Public Service Commission, [“UPSC” hereinafter], no copy of which was provided to his client.

Signature Not Verified

Signed By:AAKANSHWA.P.(C) 13864/2006 Page 1 of 6

3. We have heard learned Counsel on this issue at some length.

4. Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of UOI v R.P. Singh, [(2014) 7 SCC 340] whereas Mr. Balendu Shekhar, learned CGSC placed reliance on the decision in UOI v T.V. Patel, [(2007) 4 SCC 785]. Thereafter, Mr. Ankur Chhibber pointed out that prior to the decision in T.V. Patel, the principle in R.P. Singh had earlier been enunciated in S.N. Narula v UOI, [(2011) 4 SCC 591]. As such, applying the law laid down in para 35 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union Territory of Ladakh v Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1140], the decision in S.N. Narula would have precedence.

5. We have dealt with an identical issue in our decision in the case of Ministry of Railways v Mohan Singh Sandhu, [2024 SCC OnLine Del 9599] in which we have held that, given the position of law enunciated in Union Territory of Ladakh, the decision in S.N. Narula would rule the roost, so long as it is not reversed by any higher Court. The relevant paragraphs, from Mohan Singh Sandhu, may be reproduced thus:

“7. Certain decisions hold that the advice is required to be furnished, whereas others take a contrary view. The matter has, therefore, been referred by the Supreme Court to a larger Bench by order dated 4 July 2017 in UOI v Anup Kumar Sinha⁷

8. Though, of the decisions referred to in the order of reference, the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in UOI v T.V. Patel held that the copy of the UPSC advice need not be given to

7 Order dated 4 July 2017 in SLP (C) 17430/2017

Signature Not Verified

Signed By:AAKANSHWA.P.(C) 13864/2006 Page 2 of 6

the charged officer, and the latter decision in UOI v R.P. Singh held to the contrary, learned Counsel for the parties are ad idem that, even before these decisions, the Supreme Court had held, in S.N. Narula v UOI, that the UPSC report had necessarily to be provided to the delinquent employee. The decision in S. N.

Narula is brief and may be reproduced, in extenso, thus:

“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 chargesheet 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