Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 3755/2023 and CM APPL.14752/2023
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC
Through: Mr. Manjeet Singh Reen, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
JUDGMENT
16.01.2025 C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. On 6 June 2005, the respondent Mahender Singh was issued a charge sheet, proposing initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him. The proceedings ultimately resulted in imposition, on the respondent, of the penalty of “reduction in the same pay band by one step with cumulative effect”. The punishment was affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 24 October 2010. The respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal[1] by way of OA 2115/2011. The Tribunal, vide judgment dated 22 February 2013, set aside the punishment order as well as the appellate order and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority to pass a speaking order. The Appellate Authority once again rejected the respondent’s appeal vide “Tribunal” hereinafter order dated 3 July 2013. A Revision Petition, preferred thereagainst, was rejected by the Revisionary Authority on 25 October 2013. The respondent once again approached the Tribunal by way of OA 1893/2014 in which the Tribunal, once again, vide order dated 23 August 2018, quashed and set aside the order of punishment, the appellate order and the revisionary order and directed the petitioners to proceed de novo from the stage of issuance of the charge sheet and appoint an appropriate Inquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry. The disciplinary proceedings took off once again, resulting in an order dated 12 July 2022, passed by the Disciplinary Authority[2], whereby the respondent was imposed a penalty of withholding of 100% monthly pension on a permanent basis.
2. Assailing this order, the respondent approached the Tribunal a third time, by way of OA 2339/2022.
3. Before the Tribunal, the respondent raised only two grounds. The first was that the punishment order dated 12 July 2022 expressly stated, in paras 6 and 7, that it was based on advice received from the Union Public Service Commission[3], which had never been provided to the respondent, and the second ground urged by the respondent was that the punishment imposed was disproportionate to the gravity of the charge against him. The Tribunal, following its own earlier decision in Krishna Singh v UOI[4] – which, in turn, relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in UOI v S.K. Kapur[5], held that, as the advice of the UPSC had not been provided to the respondent before the punishment order was passed against him, the order stood vitiated. “DA” hereinafter “UPSC” hereinafter Judgement dated 16 January 2020 in OA 42/2015
4. Noting the fact that the respondent had been provided a copy of the UPSC advice only after the OA had been filed by him, the Tribunal has set aside the punishment order, appellate order and revisionary order passed against the respondent and has directed restoration of his pension. Additionally, the respondent has been granted liberty to prefer a comprehensive representation to the petitioners, keeping in view all relevant facts including the advice of the UPSC and the petitioners have been directed to consider the said representation and pass an appropriate reasoned and speaking order thereon as expeditiously as possible.
5. Aggrieved by the said decision, the Railway Authorities have approached this Cout by means of the present writ petition.
6. We have heard Ms. Lakra for the petitioner and Manjeet Singh Reen for the respondent.
7. Mr. Reen points out that the issue in controversy is covered by a recent judgment rendered by this Court in Ministry of Railways v Shri Mohan Singh Sandhu[6], on the aspect of the requirement of furnishing of a copy of the UPSC advice to the charged officer, before the advice was acted upon to his detriment. In the said decision, this Court has observed as under:
WP(C) 8929/2024 decided on 27 September 2024 SLP (C) 17430/2017 the charged officer, and the latter decision in UOI v R.P. Singh[9] 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 UOI10, 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:
order and remand the case back to the disciplinary authority to pass a detailed reasoned and speaking order within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance with 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 Conference11, para 35 of which is eloquent on the approach to be adopted by the courts when faced with 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1140 conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court or a situation in which the matter stands referred by the Supreme Court to a larger Bench:
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.”
8. Ms. Lakra fairly acknowledges the fact that the dispute in controversy stands covered by the judgment in Mohan Singh Sandhu. However, she submits that as the Supreme Court is still seized of the issue of whether the disciplinary proceedings would stand vitiated merely on the ground of non-supply of the UPSC advice, where the final punishment order relies on the said advice, this Court may consider awaiting the outcome of the proceedings in the Supreme Court.
9. We are not inclined to defer to Ms. Lakra’s request. A similar contention was, in fact, raised before us in Mohan Singh Sandhu and stands rejected, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union Territory of Ladakh, which has specifically disapproved High Courts adjourning matters merely because the issue in controversy may be pending before the Supreme Court. Though the said decision was rendered in the context of pendency of the issue in review or if it stands referred to a larger bench, the principle would equally apply if the issue is merely pending before the Supreme Court, unless there is a proscription, by the Supreme Court, on authorities lower in the judicial hierarchy deciding matters coming up before them. The decisions require the High Court to adjudicate on the issues which arise before it keeping in view the extant position in law.
10. As the issue in controversy stands squarely covered by our earlier decision in Mohan Singh Sandhu which, in turn, relies on judgments of the Supreme Court on the point, we are in agreement with the Tribunal that the punishment imposed on the respondent cannot sustain as it was predicated on advice tendered by the UPSC, no copy of which was made available to the respondent.
11. There is, therefore, no occasion for us to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal which is accordingly upheld in its entirety.
12. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.