Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 13864/2006
MANISH KUMAR SACHAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Ms. Rajul Jain, Ms. Rhea Verma and Ms. Poorvi Rewalia, Advs.
Through: Mr. Balendu Shekhar, CGSC
Mr. Rajkumar Maurya, Advs.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
JUDGMENT
02.05.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The issue in controversy in this writ petition is as to whether the punishment of withholding of two increments in the time scale of pay for a period of two years without cumulative effect could be sustained.
2. Mr Ankur Chhibber, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has restricted his submission to the plea that the impugned order of punishment stands vitiated as it was issued on the basis of an advice received from the Union Public Service Commission[1], no copy of which was provided to his client. “UPSC” hereinafter
3. We have heard learned Counsel on this issue at some length.
4. Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of UOI v R.P. Singh[2] whereas Mr. Balendu Shekhar, learned CGSC placed reliance on the decision in UOI v T.V. Patel[3]. Thereafter, Mr. Ankur Chhibber pointed out that prior to the decision in T.V. Patel, the principle in R.P. Singh had earlier been enunciated in S.N. Narula v UOI[4]. As such, applying the law laid down in para 35 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union Territory of Ladakh v Jammu and Kashmir National Conference[5], the decision in S.N. Narula would have precedence.
5. We have dealt with an identical issue in our decision in the case of Ministry of Railways v Mohan Singh Sandhu[6] in which we have held that, given the position of law enunciated in Union Territory of Ladakh, the decision in S.N. Narula would rule the roost, so long as it is not reversed by any higher Court. The relevant paragraphs, from Mohan Singh Sandhu, may be reproduced thus:
Order dated 4 July 2017 in SLP (C) 17430/2017 the charged officer, and the latter decision in UOI v R.P. Singh held to the contrary, learned Counsel for the parties are ad idem that, even before these decisions, the Supreme Court had held, in S.N. Narula v UOI, that the UPSC report had necessarily to be provided to the delinquent employee. The decision in S. N. Narula is brief and may be reproduced, in extenso, thus:
instructions and law on the subject.”
5. This order was challenged by the Union of India by way of writ petition before the High Court of Delhi and by the impugned judgment the High Court interfered with that order. The writ petition was partly allowed and it was directed that the matter be again considered by the Tribunal. Against that order the appellant has come up in appeal by way of special leave petition.
6. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the report of the Union Public Service Commission was not communicated to the appellant before the final order was passed. Therefore, the appellant was unable to make an effective representation before the disciplinary authority as regards the punishment imposed.
7. We find that the stand taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal was correct and the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order. Therefore, we set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and direct that the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant be finally disposed of in accordance with the direction given by the Tribunal in para 6 of the order. The appellant may submit a representation within two weeks to the disciplinary authority and we make it clear that the matter shall be finally disposed of by the disciplinary authority within a period of 3 months thereafter.
8. The appeal is disposed of.” (Emphasis supplied)
9. Mr. Manjeet Singh Reen, learned Counsel for the respondent, has drawn our attention to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Union Territory of Ladakh v Jammu & Kashmir National Conference, para 35 of which is eloquent on the approach to be adopted by the courts when faced with conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court or a situation in which the matter stands referred by the Supreme Court to a larger Bench:
pending. We have also come across examples of High Courts refusing deference to judgments of this Court on the score that a later Coordinate Bench has doubted its correctness. In this regard, we lay down the position in law. We make it absolutely clear that the High Courts will proceed to decide matters on the basis of the law as it stands. It is not open, unless specifically directed by this Court, to await an outcome of a reference or a review petition, as the case may be. It is also not open to a High Court to refuse to follow a judgment by stating that it has been doubted by a later Coordinate Bench. In any case, when faced with conflicting judgments by Benches of equal strength of this Court, it is the earlier one which is to be followed by the High Courts, as held by a 5-Judge Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi[8]. The High Courts, of course, will do so with careful regard to the facts and circumstances of the case before it.” (Emphasis supplied)
10. Thus, the view expressed by the Supreme Court is that, even when, owing to conflicting decisions rendered by it, the Supreme court has referred an issue to larger Bench, courts lower in the judicial hierarchy should not adjourn matters awaiting the outcome of the larger Bench, but should follow the law laid down in the earlier decision. In so holding, the Supreme Court has relied on an earlier constitution bench pronouncement in Pranay Sethi.
11. Following the above enunciation of law, this Court is bound to follow the law laid down by the Supreme Court in S.N. Narula which, as per submissions of learned counsel, appears to be the earliest decision on the point, on whether the advice of the UPSC was or was not required to be provided to the delinquent employee.
12. As S. N. Narula holds that the advice of the UPSC was required to be provided to the delinquent officer and this is the view expressed by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment as well as, we find no reason to interfere with the decision under challenge. It is accordingly upheld in its entirety.”
6. We may also note that the decision in T. V. Patel was held in UOI v S.K. Kapoor[9] to be per incuriam.
7. In that view of the matter, following our decision in Mohan Singh Sandhu, this writ petition is allowed with consequential benefits with no orders as to costs.
8. This would not, however, preclude the respondents from proceeding in accordance with law, if so advised.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.