2014 (5) TMI 1160 - SC - Indian Laws

Denial of natural justice - Whether the High Court is justified in issuing the directionse solely on the ground that non-supply of the advice obtained by the disciplinary authority from the UPSC and acting on the same amounts to violation of principles of natural justice? - Held that - In view of the aforesaid, we respectfully agree with the decision rendered in S.K. Kapoor s case 2011 (3) TMI 1633 - SUPREME COURT wherein held although Article 320(3)(c) is not mandatory, if the authorities do consult the Union Public Service Commission and rely on the report of the commission for taking disciplinary action, then the principles of natural justice require that a copy of the report must be supplied in advance to the employee concerned so that he may have an opportunity of rebuttal. Thus resultantly decline to interfere with the judgment and order of the High Court. As a result, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Non-supply of UPSC advice to the delinquent officer at the pre-decisional stage.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Interpretation of Rule 32 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1965.
4. Binding nature of judicial precedents and the concept of per incuriam.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-supply of UPSC advice to the delinquent officer at the pre-decisional stage:
The core issue was whether the non-supply of the UPSC advice to the delinquent officer before the imposition of punishment constituted a violation of principles of natural justice. The High Court held that non-supply of the UPSC advice at the pre-decisional stage amounted to a violation of principles of natural justice, as it denied the officer a fair opportunity to make an effective representation. The Supreme Court examined Rule 32 of the CCS Rules, which mandates the supply of the UPSC advice along with the final order. The Court also considered previous decisions, including Union of India v. T.V. Patel and S.K. Kapoor, to determine the correct interpretation of the rule and the necessity of supplying the advice before the final decision.

2. Violation of principles of natural justice:
The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of the principles of natural justice, emphasizing that any material used against a delinquent officer must be supplied in advance to allow for a fair opportunity to rebut. The Court referenced the Constitution Bench decision in MD, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, which held that non-supply of the Inquiry Officer's report before the disciplinary authority's decision constitutes a breach of natural justice. This principle was extended to the non-supply of UPSC advice, affirming that it must be communicated before the imposition of punishment to ensure a fair hearing.

3. Interpretation of Rule 32 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1965:
Rule 32 stipulates that a copy of the UPSC advice must be furnished to the government servant along with the final order. The appellants argued that this rule does not require pre-decisional supply of the advice. However, the Supreme Court, agreeing with the High Court and the decision in S.K. Kapoor, held that the principles of natural justice necessitate the supply of such advice before the final decision, enabling the delinquent officer to make an effective representation.

4. Binding nature of judicial precedents and the concept of per incuriam:
The Court addressed the contention that the decision in T.V. Patel was per incuriam as it did not consider the earlier binding precedent in S.N. Narula. The Supreme Court emphasized that a subsequent decision by a co-equal bench must follow earlier binding precedents unless referred to a larger bench. It concluded that T.V. Patel was rendered per incuriam due to its failure to consider S.N. Narula, which had established the requirement of pre-decisional supply of UPSC advice.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that non-supply of the UPSC advice before the imposition of punishment violated the principles of natural justice. The Court emphasized the need for disciplinary authorities to adhere to the principles of natural justice by supplying all relevant materials, including the UPSC advice, to the delinquent officer before making a final decision. The appeal was dismissed, and the directives of the High Court were maintained, ensuring that the delinquent officer is given a fair opportunity to represent his case.

← Previous Next →