Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

[14] In this regard, this court is of the view that the scope and ambit of Section 33 of the CCS (CC & A) Rules, 1965 has fallen to various interpretations. In T.V. Patel (supra) the apex court has observed that when the advice of the Public Service Commission is acted upon, the copy of such advisory shall be tendered to the government servant. In T.V. Patel (supra), having noted the language employed in Rule 32, namely 'along with a copy of the order passed in the case, by the authority making the order' it has been held that, that would mean the final order passed by the authority imposing penalty on the delinquent government servant. But in State of U.P. vs. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, reported in AIR 1957 SC 912, the apex court has held that such provisions do not confer any rights on the public servant in the absence of consultation or any irregularity in consultation process or for not furnishing a copy of the advice tendered by the UPSC or to get the cause of action challenging the action in a court of law inasmuch as the provision of Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution of India are not mandatory in nature. In Union of India and others vs. S.K. Kapoor, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 589 the apex court had accepted the ratio laid down in the case of T.V. Patel (supra) in so far as the interpretation of Article 320(3) (c) is concerned and, in that context, it has been observed that the provisions contained in the said Article 320(3) (c) of the Constitution are mandatory. While distinguishing certain aspects, the apex court had observed as under:
"7. 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 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. Patel's case is clearly distinguishable."

Further the apex court had proceeded to give their own reasons to express their respectful concurrence with S.K. Kapoor (supra) by observing that:

"23. At this juncture, we would like to give our reasons for our respectful concurrence with S.K. Kapoor (supra). There is no cavil over the proposition that the language engrafted in Article 320(3)(c) does not make the said Article mandatory. As we find, in the T.V. Patel's case, the Court has based its finding on the language employed in Rule 32 of the Rules. It is not in dispute that the said Rule from the very inception is a part of the 1965 Rules. With the efflux of time, there has been a change of perception as regards the applicability of the principles of natural justice. An Inquiry Report in a disciplinary proceeding is required to be furnished to the delinquent employee so that he can make an adequate representation explaining his own stand/stance. That is what precisely has been laid down in the B.Karnukara's case. We may reproduce the relevant passage with profit: -