LexUNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus T.V. PATEL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
--{
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
A
v.
T.V.PATEL
APRIL 19, 2007
[H.K. SEMA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.]
B
CCS CCA Rules-Rule 32-Disciplinary proceedings-Against
Government employee-Imposition of penalty after considering the advice by
Union Public Service Commission-Copy of advice sent to delinquent official C
alongwith copy of the final order-Disciplinary proceedings held vitiated by
courts below on the ground of non-supply of copy of advice before passing
of final order-On appeal, held: In view of the language of the rule the copy
of advice is to be supplied with the final order-The provisions of Article 320
(3) (c) of the Constitution are not mandatory-Absence of consultation or
irregularity in that process or in furnishing a copy of the advice by UPSC D
does not afford the delinquent government servant a cause of action before
Court of law-Matters remitted back to the respective Courts wherein matter
was decided only on the ground of non-supply of the advice-Constitution
of India, 1950-Article 320 (3) (c )-Service law-Disciplinary Proceedings.
In the present cases, in Departmental Inquiry of the employees of E
appellant-State, advice of Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) was
sought Thereafter considering the advice of UPSC penalty was imposed. A
copy of the advice ofUPSC was sent to the delinquent officials alongwith the
final order.
Original applications were filed in Central Administrative Tribunals. F
Some cases were decided by the Tribunal taking into consideration all the
points, while in some areas Tribunal took into consideration only one ground
and held the disciplinary proceedings vitiated as the copy of advice by UPSC
was not provided to the appellant before passing of final order.
In appeals High Court, disposed of the matter only on the ground of non-
supply of copy of advice by UPSC before passing of the order.
In appeal to this Court, the question for consideration was whether a
copy of advice tendered by UPSC is to be furnished with final order of penalty
G
373
H
374
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2007] 5 S.C.R.
A or before passing of the final order.
" -
...._
t
Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to the Tribuna~ the Court
HELD: 1. The language employed in Rule 32 of CCA CCS Rules, namely
"along with a copy of the order passed in the case, by the authority making
B the order" would mean the fmal order passed by the authority imposing penalty
on the delinquent government servant. [Para 17) (378-E)
>--
State Bank of India v. D.C. Aggarwal, [1993) 1 SCC and Managing
Director, ECIL, Hyderabadv. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727, distinguished.
,._
c
2. The provisions of Article 320(3)( c ) of the Constitution oflndia are
not mandatory and they do not confer any rights on the public servant so that
the absence of consultation or any irregularity in consultation process or
furnishing a copy of the advice tendered by the UPSC, if any, does not afford
the delinquent government servant a cause of action in a court of law.
D
[Para 24) (382-DI
State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, [1958) SCR 533, followed.
~-
Ram Gopal Chaturvedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 11969) 2 SCC 240,
relied on.
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2067 of2007.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.12.2004 of the High Court of
Gujrat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No. 17027 of2004.
WITH
F
C.A. No. 2071, 2072, 2068, 2070, 2069 of2007 & 3628 of2006.
B. Datta and Vikas Singh, ASGs., Vimla Sinha, Satyakam Prakash, V.K.
Verma, Sandhya Goswami, B.V. Balaram Das for the Appellants.
G
Sumeer Kumar Shrivastava, Nanda Sinha and S.K. Verma for the
Respondents in C.A. No. 2068 of 2007.
~
Vijay Panjwani for the Respondents in C.A. No. 2069 of 2007.
Nikhil Majithia and Prashant Kumar for the Respondents in C.A. No.
H 2071 of2007.
U.0.1. v. T.V.PATEL [H.K. SEMA,J.]
375
-.....,,
>c
V.N. Raghupathy and Ranji Thomas for the Respondents in C.A. No. A
2072 of2007.
T.V. Patel Respondent-In-Person in C.A. No. 2067 of2007.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H.K. SEMA, J. I. Leave granted.
2. These appeals preferred by the Union of India arise out of a common
question of facts and law and they are being disposed of this common order.
The facts are identical. For the sake of brevity we are taking facts from S.L.P
B
(C)No.11651 of2005.
C
3. The facts in compendium are as follows:
4. The respondent was functioning as SDO (Phone) at Navsari TExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.