High CourtDivision Bench2011-03-16Appeal dismissed.

Union of India & Others v. S.K. Kapoor

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal No. 5341 of 2006

Neutral Citation:(2011) 3 S.C.R. 906

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Markandey Katju
Gyan Sudha Misra
Judgment Date: 2011-03-16
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Union of India & Others

Respondents

S.K. Kapoor

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• S.W.A. Qadri
• Sunita Sharma

Counsels for Respondents

• Haresh Raichura
• Shashi Juneja

Case Synopsis & Summary

The case concerns a departmental inquiry against a government employee for absence without leave, culminating in a dismissal order. The employee sought relief after the Central Administrative Tribunal quashed the dismissal and directed authorities to proceed from the stage of providing a copy of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) report. The Gujarat High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging this order. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s view that when the authorities rely on a UPSC report for disciplinary action, natural justice requires supplying a copy of that report in advance to the charge-sheeted employee to enable rebuttal. While the appellant relied on the Court’s decision in Union of India v. TV Patel (2007) 4 SCC 785, the Court distinguished that authority, noting that Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution is not mandatory but, if the UPSC report is relied upon, it must be supplied to permit rebuttal. The Court also discussed S.N. Narula v. Union of India & Others (Civil Appeal No. 642 of 2004, decided 30 January 2004), which was binding on subsequent benches, and found TV Patel’s decision to be per incuriam for not recognising Narula. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed with parties bearing their own costs. The decision emphasizes that proof of reliance on a UPSC report necessitates pre-disclosure to the employee for a fair opportunity of rebuttal.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution of IndiaArticle 141 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

principles of natural justice
per incuriam

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that the copy of the UPSC G Report was supplied to the respondent along with the dismissal order, and relied on Union of India v. TV Patel (2007) 4 SCC 785 to contend that Article 320(3)(c) is not mandatory and a copy need not be supplied where not relied upon. They contended that the UPSC report, if relied upon for disciplinary action, should be considered and that supplying it with the dismissal order was substantial compliance. They urged that the decision in TV Patel should be followed as binding precedent. They further contended that Narula v. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 642 of 2004, decided 30 January 2004) remains a binding authority and that any subsequent deviation must be referred to a larger Bench to bind all equal-strength benches.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued for adherence to the principle that the UPSC report need not be supplied unless it is relied upon for taking disciplinary action, aligning with TV Patel’s analysis that the non-mandatory nature of Article 320(3)(c) allows flexibility. They asserted that supplying the report with the dismissal order satisfies natural justice when the report is considered, and questioned the necessity of a fresh advance copy where it is already in the process. They relied on the contemporaneous understanding of natural justice with reference to Article 320(3)(c), while acknowledging Narula’s authority to the extent it binds subsequent benches but maintaining that TV Patel should not be treated as per incuriam without distinguishing Narula.”},

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Union of India v. TV Patel	(2007) 4 SCC 785	Distinguished	The Court distinguished TV Patel, noting that its reasoning is inapplicable to the facts where the UPSC report is relied upon for disciplinary action and thus requires advance disclosure, which TV Patel did not address.
S.N. Narula v. Union of India & Others	Civil Appeal No. 642 of 2004 (decided 30 January 2004)	Positive	Narula’s decision was binding on subsequent benches and supported the principle that failure to consider binding precedents can render a later decision per incuriam; TV Patel was treated as per incuriam for not noticing Narula.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Union of India & Others v. S.K. Kapoor and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

(2011) 3 S.C.R. 906 A ## UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS _v._ S.K. KAPOOR (Civil Appeal No. 5341 of 2006) B MARCH 16, 2011 **[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]** - _Service Law Departmental enquiry- Supply of the copy of the material relied upon in departmental proceedings to the_ - C _charge sheeted employee in advance Held: Is necessary, so that he may have_ a _chance to rebut the same_ - _Although Article 320(3)(c) is not mandatory, if the authorities consult the Union Public Service Commission and rely on its report for taking disciplinary action, then the principles of natural justice_ **D** _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 On facts, the report of the Commission_ was _not supplied to the employee concerned in advance and therefore, the dismissal order was rightly quashed by the_ - - E _courts below Principles of natural justice Constitution of_ - _India, 1950 Article 320(3)(c)._ - _Constitution of India, 1950-Article 141 If_ a _subsequent co .. ordinate bench of equal strength wants to take_ a _different view from the prior decision of_ a _co-ordinate bench, it can only_ - F _refer the matter to_ a _larger bench Otherwise the prior decision of_ a _co-ordinate bench_ is _binding on the subsequent bench of equal strength._ _Union of India_ vs. _T. V. Patel_ **(2007) 4 SCC 785 - held** G **per incuriam** S.N. _Narula_ vs. _Union of India and Ors._ **Civil Appeal No.642 of2004 decided on 30th January, 2004 - relied on.** 906 H UNION OF !NOIA & OTHERS _v._ S.K. KAPOOR 907 ## Case Law Reference: A (2007) 4 sec 785 Held per incuriam. Para 8 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5341 of 2006. B From the Judgment & Order dated 25.4.2005 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No. 7201 of 2005. S.W.A. Qadri and Sunita Sharma (for P. Parmeswaran) for the Appellant. C Haresh Raichura and Shashi Juneja for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered ## ORDER D ## Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 25th April, 2005 passed by the High Court of E Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No. 7201 of 2005. It appears that the respondent had been charge sheeted for absence without leave and a dismissal order was passed against him on 01.11.2001. · F The respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, which by its order dated 20th July, 2004 quashed the dismissal order and directed the authorities to proceed from the stage of making available a copy of the G Report of the Union Public Service Commission. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the appellants herein filed a writ petition . in the High Court of Gujarat at H 908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 3 S.C.R. A Ahmedabad being Special Civil Application No.7201 of 2005, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Hence, this appeal. We have perused the impugned order and find no infirmity in the same. 8 c It is a settled principle of natural justice that if any material is to be relied upon in departmental proceedings, a copy of the same must be supplied in advance to the charge sheeted employee so that he may have a chance to rebut the same. Mr. Qadri, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the copy of the Report of the Union Public Service Commission was supplied to the respondent-employee along with the dismissal order. He submitted that this is valid in view of the o decision of this Court in _Union of India vs. TV.Patel,_ (2007) 4 sec 785. ## We do not agree. In the af;;resaid decision, it has been observed in para 25 E that 'the provisions of Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution of India are not mandatory'. We are of the opinion that 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 F 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, in our view, the aforesaid decision in _T V.Pafel's_ case is clearly distinguishable. There may be a case where the report of the Union Public G Service Commission is not relied upon by the disciplinary authority and in that case it is certainly not necessary to supply a copy of the same to the concerned employee. However, if it is relied upon, then a copy of the same must be supplied in advance to the concerned employee, otherwise, there will be H violation of the principles of natural justice. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS _v._ S.K. KAPOOR 909 This is also the view taken by this Court in the case of ·A _S.N.Narula vs. Union of India_ & _Others, Civil Appea/No.642 of 2004 decided on 30th January, 2004._ It may be noted that the decision in _S.N.Naru/a's case (supra)_ was prior to the decision in _T. V.Pate/'s case(supra)._ It 8 is well settled that if a subsequent co-ordinate bench of equal strength wants to take a different view, it can only refer the matter to a larger bench, otherwise the prior decision of a coordinate bench is binding on the subsequef'lt. bench of equal strength. Since, the decision in _S.N,Narula's case (supra)_ was C not noticed in _T. V.Patel's case(supra),_ the latter decision is a judgment _per incuriam._ The decision in _S.N.Narula's case (supra)_ was binding on the subsequent bench of equal strength and hence, it could not take a contrary view, as is settled by a series of judgments of this Court. C D For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. N.J. Appeal dismissed.