UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS versus S.K. KAPOOR

Citation: [2011] 3 S.C.R. 906 · Decided: 16-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU, GYAN SUDHA MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2011) 3 S.C.R. 906 
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 
v. 
S.K. KAPOOR 
(Civil Appeal No. 5341 of 2006) 
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 
H 
S.N. Narula vs. Union of India and Ors. Civil Appeal 
No.642 of2004 decided on 30th January, 2004 - relied on. 
906 
UNION OF !NOIA & OTHERS v. S.K. KAPOOR 
907 
Case Law Reference: 
(2007) 4 sec 785 
Held per incuriam. Para 8 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
5341 of 2006. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 25.4.2005 of the High 
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No. 
7201 of 2005. 
A 
B 
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 
Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
D 
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 
8 
in the same. 
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 su

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.