LexUNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus R.P. SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2014] 6 S.C.R. 351 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. R.P. SINGH (Civil Appeal No.6717 of 2008) MAY 22, 2014 [DIPAK MISRA AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] Service Law: A B Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and c Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rule 32 - Supply of copy of Commission's advice - Disciplinary Authority obtaining advice from Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and acting on the same and thereafter, penalty imposed on employee - Non-supply of advice to the employee before o awarding punishment - Effect of - Held: Amounts to violation of principles of natural justice - UPSC advice is to be communicated before imposition of punishment - Rule 32 provides for supply of copy of advice to government servant at the time of making an order - Said stage was prevailing E earlier - Authority should have clarified the Rule regarding development in the service jurisprudence - Doctrines/ Principles. Per incuriam - Concept of - Held:. When subsequent decision is rendered in ignorance or forgetfulness of the F binding authority, the concept of per incuriam comes into play. Departmental proceedings were initiated against respondent-employee. The Inquiry Officer submitted the G Inquiry report stating that charges leveled against the delinquent officer were not proved. The Disciplinary Authority did not agree and sought advice from the Union Public Service Commission by proposing to impose 351 H 352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R. A penalty of reduction of pay. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the advice from UPSC and passed the order of punishment and thereafter, communicated it to the respondent along with. the advice of UPSC. The respondent challenged the order before the Tribunal on s the ground that he was not furnished the advice of UPSC before imposing the punishment, thus, there was violation of principles of· natural justice. The Tribunal dismissed the application of the respondent holding that no prejudice was caused to him. The High· Court set c aside the order passed by the Tribunal and issued directions to the appel;Jnts to consider the representation of the respondents. Dismissing the appeal, the Court D HELD: 1.1. The submission that the decision in * S.N. Narula's case is not an authority because the tribunal had set aside the order of the disciplinary authority on the ground that it was a non-speaking order cannot be accepted. The *S.N. Narula's case is an authority for the E proposition that the advice of Union Public Service Commission, if sought and accepted, the same, regard being had to the principles of natural justice, is to be communicated ~~(.ore im11osition of punishment. [Para 13] [361-F-H] - F *S.N. Narula v. Union of India and others (2011) 4 SCC 591 - relied on. 1.2. As regards the submission that the two-Judge Bench ** S.K. Kapoor's case could not have opined that G the decision in £ T. V. Patel's case is per incuriam, cannot pe accepted. The judgment in S.N. Narula's case was not . · brought to the notice of the Bench deciding the lis in T. \I. Patel case. There cannot be a shadow of doubt that the judgment in S.N. Narula is a binding precedent to be H followed by the later Division Bench, and when the UNION OF INDIA v. R.P. SINGH 353 subsequent decision in £T. V. Patel case is rendered in A ignorance or forgetfulness of the binding authority, the concept of per incurium comes into play. Testing on the said principles it can safely be concluded that the judment in T.V. Patel's case is per incuriam. [Para 16, 19, 22] [363-B-D; 364-C; 365-D] B *S.N. Narula v. Union of India and others (2011) 4 SCC. 591 - relied on. £Union of India and another v . . T. V. Patel (2007) 4 SCC 785 - per incuriam. C **Union of India and others vs. S. K. Kapoor 2011 (3) SCR 906: (2011) 4 sec 589 - reiterated. Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (dead) by L.Rs and 0 ; others 19.89 (3) SCR 316: (1989) 2 SCC 754; Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., v. Municipal Corporation and Another 1995 (3) SCR 246: AIR 1995 SC 1480; Municipal Corpn., Indore v. Ratnaprabha Dhandha 1989 MPLJ 20; Municipal Corporation, Indore v. Ratna Prabha 1977 ( 1 ) SCR 1017: (1976) 4 SCC 622; Chandra Prakash and others v. State of E U.P. and another 2002 ( 2 ) SCR 913: (2002) 4 sec 234; A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak 1988 (1) Suppl. SCR 1: (1988) 2 SCC 602; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors 2010 (15 ) SCR 201: AIR 2011 SC 312 - referred
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.