STATE OF U.P. versus VIJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI AND ANR.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 350 · Decided: 07-12-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF U.P. 
v. 
VIJA Y KUMAR TRIPATHI AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 7, 1994 
B 
[B. P. JEEVAN REDDY AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Service Law : U. P. Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) 
Rules, 1930: 
Sections 49, 55-B (a)-Penalty of censure or stop-page of increment at 
efficiency bar-Providing that framing of charges or calling for an 
explanation not necessary-Held: Ordinarily opportunity to show cause to 
be afforded-Principles of Natural Justice to be read into the Rules-
Giving of post-decisional opportunity instead of pre-decisional hearing-
Open to the c_ompetent authority though normal, Rule is prior opportunity. 
Constitution of lndia, 1950 : Art. 136- New plea-Not to be permitted 
at the special leave proceedings. 
Respondent, a member of the U. P. Civil Services (Executive 
Branch) was awarded a censure entry for pressurising the carpet 
traders in his area to render financial assistance to students who were 
agitating against the reservation policy of the Government. He 
challenged the same before the Tribunal on the ground that Rule 55-B 
(a) of the U. P. Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 
1930 which provided for censure without framing formal charges or 
calling for the explanation, as being violative of the principles of 
natural justice. The Tribunal allowed the claim. State preferred an 
appeal before the High Court which held that while the Tribunal was 
not right in holding that it was necessary to hold a regular inquiry 
before awarding censure, the order of the Tribunal was liable to be 
sustained on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 
Hence the present appeal by the State. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1 Rule 55-B (a) of the U. P. Civil Service (Classification 
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 does not exclude or prohibit the 
observance of the principles of natural justice. It only says that it is not 
H 
obligatory to either frame formal charges or to call for the explanation 
350 
•
I 
_. -
SATE OF U.P. v. V. K. TRIPATHI [B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.] 
351 
of the concerned employee before imposing the penalty of censure. The A 
normal rule enunciated by this Court is that wherever it is necessary to 
ensure against the failure of justice, principles of natural justice must 
be read into a provision. Such a course, of course, is not permissible 
where the rule excludes, either expressly or by necessary intendment, 
the application of the principles of natural justice but in that event 
validity of the Rule may fall for consideration. Consistent with the B 
above rule, ordinarily speaking, an opportunity to show cause against 
the proposed imposition of penalty of censure should be given to the 
employee concerned before its imposition. Censure is a penalty. It 
cannot also be said that it bas no adverse consequences; it has. Hence 
the necessity to read the said principles. It would certainly be open to 
the competent authority in a given case to provide a post decisional C 
opportunity instead of a pre-decisional hearing. (There may indeed be 
exceptional situations where the principles of natural justice may have 
to be dispensed with, but they are an exception.) Normal rule, of 
course, is prior opportunity. [353 D to G) 
1.2. In the instant case, admittedly prior opportunity of hearing or D 
to show cause against the action proposed was not given to the 
· respondent. It was also not brought to the notice of the Tribunal or the 
High Court that a post-decisional hearing was given to respondent. In 
the absence of any such plea being taken either before the Tribunal or 
before the High Court, it cannot be permitted to the raised at this stage. 
[353 H, 354 A, BJ E 
State of U P. v. Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, [1989) S.C.D.137, 
approved. 
J. P. Aggarwal, Regional Transport Officer, Dehradun v. State of U 
P., through the Secretary, Transport Department, Lucknow and Others., F 
[1973( 1 S. L. R. 194, disapproved. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8918 of 
1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.9.93 of the Allahabad High 
Court in W. P. No. 7528 (SS) of 1993. 
G 
Gorab Banerjee and R. B. Misra for the Appellant. 
K. B. Sinha, S. K. Srivastava and Mohan Pandey for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
352 
• A 
\ 
i 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS . 
[1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R 
I 
B. P. JEEV AN REDDY; J. Leave Granted . 
· Rule 49 of the U. P. Civil Service (Classification Control And
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.