Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.18 seconds)

Union Of India & Ors vs S.K.Kapoor on 16 March, 2011

12. We may refer to the legal issue of non supply of the UPSC advice/report dated 23.02.2010 on the matters of disciplinary case and the said advice has been enclosed admittedly along with the impugned penalty order. It is trite law that when the Disciplinary Authority relies on the advice of UPSC, a copy of the said report needs to be supplied to the delinquent official; receive the representation thereon and on consideration of all the facts decide the matter as to whether the delinquent official deserves to be exonerated or imposed penalty. In this context, it is well settled principles of natural justice that if any material is to be relied upon in a disciplinary case, a copy of the same must be given in advance to the delinquent officer in order to provide him an opportunity to rebut. In the present case, the Disciplinary Authority has relied heavily on the report of UPSC but a copy of the said report was not made available to the applicant in advance. Hence, such an omission is violation of the principles of natural justice and the penalty order is liable to be quashed. We draw our strength from the latest judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others versus S. K. Kapoor [2011 STPL (Web) 277 SC] wherein the following law was laid:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 532 - Full Document

Dinesh Kumar Patnaik vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 16 May, 2007

In respect of the binding nature of the UPSC advice, this Tribunal has decided the case in Dinesh Kumar Patnaik versus Union of India and Others in OA No.1955/2006 on 16.05.2007 (where one of us namely Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman was the author of the judgment) the Tribunal came to the considered conclusion that consultation with the Union Public Service Commission is necessary but the said consultation does not extend to make the advise of the Commission binding on the Government and the said judgment of this Tribunal placed reliance on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the State of UP versus Manbodhan Lal Srivastava (AIR 1987 SC 912) to observe that the requirement of the consultation of the Commission does not extend to make the advise of the Commission on those matters binding on the Government.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 11 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1