Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS versus S.K. KAPOOR

Decided
16 March 2011
Judges listed
MARKANDEY KATJU, GYAN SUDHA MISRA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2011] 3 S.C.R. 906 · 2011 INSC 210
Also cited as
  • (2011) 4 SCC 589 (25 citing judgments)
  • AIR 2011 SCW 1814 (2 citing judgments)
  • 2011 SCC OnLine SC 485 (2 citing judgments)
  • (2011) 1 SCC(L&S) 725 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (unnumbered_in_numbered_era). Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

p. 907, margin D

This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 25th April, 2005 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No. 7201 of 2005.

p. 907, margin D

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. ·

p. 907, margin E

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 Report of the Union Public Service Commission.

p. 907, margin F

Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the appellants herein filed a writ petition . in the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad being Special Civil Application No.7201 of 2005, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Hence, appeal.

pp. 907–908, margin G

We have perused the impugned order and find no infirmity in the same.

p. 908, margin A

It is a settled principle of natural justice that if any material is to be relied upon in departmental proceedings, a copy of same must be supplied in advance to the charge sheeted employee so that he may have a chance to rebut the same.

p. 908, margin A

Mr. Qadri, learned counsel for the appellant submitted the copy of the Report of the Union Public Service Commission was supplied to the respondent-employee along with dismissal order. He submitted that this is valid in view of decision of this Court in Union of India vs. TV.Patel, (2007) sec 785.

p. 908, margin C

We do not agree.

p. 908, margin C

In the af;;resaid decision, it has been observed in para that 'the provisions of Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution 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 principles of natural justice require that a copy of the report must be supplied in advance to the employee concerned so that may have an opportunity of rebuttal. Thus, in our view, aforesaid decision in T V.Pafel's case is clearly distinguishable.

p. 908, margin C

There may be a case where the report of the Union Public Service Commission is not relied upon by the disciplinary authority and in that case it is certainly not necessary to supply a copy of the same to the concerned employee. However, is relied upon, then a copy of the same must be supplied advance to the concerned employee, otherwise, there will violation of the principles of natural justice.

p. 908, margin F

This is also the view taken by this Court in the case of ·A S.N.Narula vs. Union of India & Others, Civil Appea/No.642 of 2004 decided on 30th January, 2004.

p. 909

It may be noted that the decision in S.N.Naru/a's case (supra) was prior to the decision in T. V.Pate/'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 coordinate bench is binding on the subsequef'lt. 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.

p. 909

For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. N.J. Appeal dismissed.

p. 909, margin D