Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15 After so stating the two-Judge Bench opined that when the Disciplinary Authority does not rely on the report of the UPSC then it is not necessary to supply the same to the employee concerned. However, when it is relied upon then the copy of the same may be supplied in advance to the employee concerned, otherwise, there would The violation of the principles of natural justice. To arrive at the said conclusion, reliance was placed upon the decision in S.N.Narula's case. Proceeding further, the Court held:

"9. It may be noted that the decision in S.N.Narula's case (supra) was prior to the decision in T.V.Patel's case(supra). It is well settled that if a subsequent co- ordinate bench of equal strength wants to take a different view, it can only 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. Since, the decision in S.N.Narula's case (supra) was not noticed in T.V.Patel's case(supra), the latter decision is a judgment per incuriam. The decision in S.N.Narula's case (supra) was binding on the subsequent bench of equal strength and hence, it could not take a contrary view, as is settled by a series of judgments of this Court."

16 Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the two- Judge Bench in S.K. Kapoor s case could not have opined that the decision in T.V. Patel s case is per incuriam. We have already noticed two facts pertaining to S.N. Narula (supra), (i) it ws rendered on 31.1.2004 and (ii) it squarely dealt with the issue and expressed an opinion. It seems to us that the judgment in S.N. Narula s case was not brought to the notice of their Lordships deciding the lis in T.V. Patel (supra). There cannot be a NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12238/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined shadow of doubt that the judgment in S.N. Narula (supra) is a binding precedent to be followed by the later Division Bench. In this context, we may fruitfully refer to the decision in Union of India V/s. Raghubir Singh (dead) by L. Rs. And Others, (1989) 2 SCC 754, wherein the Constitution Bench has held as follows: "We are of opinion that a pronouncement of law by a Division Bench of this Court is binding on a Division Bench of the same or a smaller number of Judges, and in order that such decision be binding, it is not necessary that it should be a decision rendered by the Full Court or a Constitution Bench of the Court"

28 In our considered opinion, both the Office Memoranda are not only in consonance with the S.K.Kapoor's case but also in accordance with the principles of natural justice which has been stated in B.Karunakar's case."

15. Thus, the Supreme Court, after considering the judgments in the case of S.N. Narula (supra) and S.K. Kapoor (supra), has agreed with the decision rendered in S.K. Kapoor (supra) by holding that the Advice of the UPSC, which is relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority while imposing the punishment on the delinquent, is required to be supplied in advance. It is categorically recorded in paragraph No.14 that in case the Advice of the UPSC is relied upon, a copy of the same may be supplied in advance to the employee concerned, otherwise there would be violation of principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court has placed reliance on the judgment of S.N. Narula (supra). The judgment of the Supreme Court in S.K. Kapoor (supra) was also cited before the Tribunal however, curiously the Tribunal has refused to apply the ratio of the decision in the case of S.K. Kapoor (supra) only for the reason that the judgment of S.K. Kapoor (supra) was delivered by the Supreme Court on 16.03.2011, whereas the penalty order is passed on 26.12.2005. Thus, it appears that the Tribunal was not aware of the fundamentals of the NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12238/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined applicability of legal precedents. Hence, in our opinion, since the issue in the present petition is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Supreme Court, the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal dated 13.10.2011 in O.A. No.79 of 2009 deserves to be quashed and set aside. The same is hereby quashed and set aside.