Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The common point in all the three writ petitions pertains to whether advice obtained from UPSC by the Competent Authority before levying penalty was required to be supplied to the charged officer when report of the Inquiry Officer was forwarded to him and not along with the order levying penalty.

3. In a short decision, which incidentally does not note Rule 32 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, decided on January 30, 2004, but reported in the year 2011, as (2011) 4 SCC 591 S.N.Narula Vs. UOI & Ors. a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the advisory opinion obtained from UPSC had to be communicated to the charged officer before the Disciplinary Authority inflicted the punishment and not after inflicting the punishment. In other words the requirement would be to forward advice received from UPSC along with the report of the inquiry while seeking response of the charged officer to the report of the Inquiry Officer.

5. Probably for the reason the earlier decision in S.N.Narula's case (supra) was not published when T.V.Patel's case was decided on April 19, 2007 the attention of the Bench which decided T.V.Patel's case was not drawn to the decision in S.N.Narula's case.

6. Deciding Civil Appeal No.5341/2006 on March 16, 2011, an opinion reported as (2011) 4 SCC 589 UOI & Ors. Vs. S.K.Kapoor, noting the conflicting destinations reached by two co-ordinate Benches of the Supreme Court in S.N.Narula's case (supra) and T.V.Patel's case (supra) a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court observed that it being well-settled that if a subsequent Co-ordinate Bench of equal strength wants to differ with a view taken earlier on it has to refer the matter to a Larger Bench otherwise the prior decision of the Co-ordinate Bench has to be treated as binding on subsequent Bench of equal strength.

7. Only on aforesaid reasoning in S.K.Kapoor's case (supra), law declared in T.V.Patel's case was not followed.

8. In the three impugned decisions the Tribunal has applied the law declared in S.N.Narula's case.

9. Rule 32 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which deals with supply of copy of advice received from UPSC reads as under:-

"32. Supply of copy of Commission's advice -

Whenever the Commission is consulted as provided in these Rules, a copy of the advice by the Commission and where such advice has not been accepted, also a brief statement of the reasons for such non-acceptance, shall be furnished to the government servant concerned along with a copy of the order passed in the case by the authority making the order."

Unless, it can be held, and we are not prepared to hold, that Article 320(3)(c) is in the nature of a rider or proviso to Article 311, it is not possible to construe Article 320(3)(c) in the sense of affording a cause of action to a public servant against whom some action has been taken by his employer."

11. Elaborate reasons have been given by the Bench with reference to the view taken by a Constitution Bench decision, and we highlight, after noting Rule 32 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The decision in S.N.Narula's case and S.K.Kapoor's case do not note either Article 320 of the Constitution of India nor do they note Rule 32 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 nor do they note the Constitution Bench decision.