Holding

Rule 55‑B(a) does not preclude the application of natural‑justice principles; ordinarily a prior hearing is required before imposing censure, and the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The respondent, a member of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Services, was censured for allegedly pressurising carpet traders to support students protesting the reservation policy. He challenged the censure under Rule 55‑B(a) of the U.P. Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, which dispenses with formal charges and a pre‑hearing, arguing it violated natural justice. The Tribunal and the Allahabad High Court upheld the censure on the ground that natural‑justice principles were breached. The Supreme Court held that Rule 55‑B(a) does not exclude the application of natural‑justice principles; ordinarily a pre‑decisional opportunity to be heard is required, though a post‑decisional hearing may be permissible in exceptional cases. Since no prior hearing was afforded and no post‑decisional hearing was shown, the censure could not be sustained. Consequently, the State’s appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether Rule 55‑B(a) of the U.P. Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, which omits the requirement of formal charges or a pre‑hearing, is violative of the principles of natural justice.
Whether a censure, being a penalty, can be imposed without a prior opportunity to be heard.
Whether a post‑decisional hearing can satisfy the requirements of natural justice in such cases.
Whether the appeal can be entertained despite the absence of a plea regarding a post‑decisional hearing.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 311
U.P. Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930s. 49, s. 55-B(a)
U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976s. 4

Subjects

natural justicecensurecivil service penaltydue processpre‑decisional hearingpost‑decisional hearingadministrative lawU.P. Civil Service Rules

Judgment

A STATE OF U.P.
v.
VIJA Y KUMAR TRIPATHI AND ANR.

DECEMBER 7, 1994

B [B. P. JEEVAN REDDY AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.]

Service Law : U. P. Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1930:

Sections 49, 55-B (a)-Penalty ofcensure or stop-page of increment at
c efficiency bar-Providing that framing of charges or calling for an
explanation not necessary-Held: Ordinarily opportunity to show cause to
be afforded-Principles of Natural Justice to be read into the Rules-
Giving of post-decisional opportunity instead of pre-decisional hearing-
Open to the c_ompetent authority though normal, Rule is prior opportunity.
D Constitution oflndia, 1950 : Art. 136- New plea-Not to be permitted
at the special leave proceedings.

Respondent, a member of the U. P. Civil Services (Executive
Branch) was awarded a censure entry for pressurising the carpet
traders in his area to render financial assistance to students who were
E agitating against the reservation policy of the Government. He
challenged the same before the Tribunal on the ground that Rule 55-B
(a) of the U. P. Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1930 which provided for censure without framing formal charges or
calling for the explanation, as being violative of the principles of
F natural justice. The Tribunal allowed the claim. State preferred an
appeal before the High Court which held that while the Tribunal was
not right in holding that it was necessary to hold a regular inquiry
before awarding censure, the order of the Tribunal was liable to be
sustained on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
Hence the present appeal by the State.
G
Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1.1 Rule 55-B (a) of the U. P. Civil Service (Classification
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 does not exclude or prohibit the
observance of the principles of natural justice. It only says that it is not
H obligatory to either frame formal charges or to call for the explanation
350
SATE OF U.P. v. V. K. TRIPATHI [B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.] 351

of the concerned employee before imposing the penalty of censure. The A
normal rule enunciated by this Court is that wherever it is necessary to
ensure against the failure of justice, principles of natural justice must
be read into a provision. Such a course, of course, is not permissible
where the rule excludes, either expressly or by necessary intendment,
the application of the principles of natural justice but in that event
validity of the Rule may fall for consideration. Consistent with the B
above rule, ordinarily speaking, an opportunity to show cause against
the proposed imposition of penalty of censure should be given to the
employee concerned before its imposition. Censure is a penalty. It
cannot also be said that it bas no adverse consequences; it has. Hence
the necessity to read the said principles. It would certainly be open to
the competent authority in a given case to provide a post decisional C
opportunity instead of a pre-decisional hearing. (There may indeed be
exceptional situations where the principles of natural justice may have
to be dispensed with, but they are an exception.) Normal rule, of
course, is prior opportunity. [353 D to G)

1.2. In the instant case, admittedly prior opportunity of hearing or D
to show cause against the action proposed was not given to the
· respondent. It was also not brought to the notice of the Tribunal or the
High Court that a post-decisional hearing was given to respondent. In
the absence of any such plea being taken either before the Tribunal or
before the High Court, it cannot be permitted to the raised at this stage.
[353 H, 354 A, BJ E

State of U P. v. Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, [1989) S.C.D.137,
approved.

J. P. Aggarwal, Regional Transport Officer, Dehradun v. State of U
P., through the Secretary, Transport Department, Lucknow and Others., F
[1973( 1 S. L. R. 194, disapproved.

_. I
- CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8918 of
1994.

From the Judgment and Order dated 3.9.93 of the Allahabad High
Court in W. P. No. 7528 (SS) of 1993. G
Gorab Banerjee and R. B. Misra for the Appellant.

K. B. Sinha, S. K. Srivastava and Mohan Pandey for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
352
\i SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R
I
• A B. P. JEEVAN REDDY; J. Leave Granted.

· Rule 49 of the U. P. Civil Service (Classification Control And Appeal)
Rules; 1930 provides that for good and sufficient reasons and in accordance
.•with the procedure prescribed by those Rules, penalties specified therein
may be imposed upon members of the service . Tue punishments specified
B in Rule 49 include (i) Censure and (ii) Withholding of increments including
: .stoppage at an efficiency bar. . '

Rule 55 B (a) provides that "(~) wh~ne~er the punishing authority is
. .· . satisfied that gOod and sufficient reasons exist for adopting such a course it
. may impose the penalty of-.
c (i) censlire, or

(ii) stoppage at an efficiency bar :

· Provided that it shall not be necessary to frame formal charges against
the Government servant concerned or to call for his explanation."
D . .I .· ' . . ..· ·,
Tue Allahabad High Court has opined in the order under appeal that
awarding censure without affording an opportunity to the . affected
employee to 'explain the material on the basis of which the penalty of
censure is proposed to be awarded is violative of the principles of natural
justice. This has been so held following a decision of that Court in State of
E · U. P. v. Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, (1989) S.C.D. 137. Tue High Court
has also observed towards the end of its judgement that the censure entry
also appears to be vague and lacking in particulars.

Shri Gaurab Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellant-State
rontends on the strength of another decision of the Allahabad High Court in
"·· F · J. P.' Aggarwal, Regional Transport Officer, Dehi-adun v. State of U. P.,'
' , throu'gh the Secretary, Transport De]iartment, Lucknow And Others, (1973)
• 1 S.L.R. 194; that no such opportunity need be given and !hat the awarding
. of censure without such opportunity is not liable to be quashed on the . .
-·-ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Tue learned counsel ·
, ·submits that Rule 55- B (a) expressly provides that is not necessary either to
. G' frame formal charges or to call for the explanation of the concerned
government employee where the penalty of censure is proposed to be
.'awarded. Counsel further submitted that the validity of the Rule was not
-...._ questioned by the respondent before the High Court.

Tue respondent is a
member of U. P. Civil Services '(EiZeeutive •
H Branch). During the period 1989-90, he was working as the Additional
SATE OF U.P. v. V. K. TRIPATHI [8. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.) 353

District Magistrate (Executive) at Gyanpur in District Varanasi. On the A
ground that he pressurised the carpet traders of that area to render financial
assistance to students who were agitating against the reservation policy of
the Government, he was awarded a· censure entry in his character roll vide
D.O. letter dated 21.3.1991. Against the said entry, the respondent filed a
Claim Petition under Section 4 of the U. P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act,
1976. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition holding that awarding the B
censure entry without making a full oral enquiry as provided by C. C. A.
Rules was violative of Article 311 of the Constitution. The State of Uttar
Pradesh questioned the order of Tribunal by way of a Writ Petition in the
Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench). A learned Single Judge of the
High Court held that while the Tribunal was not right in holding that it was
necessary to hold a regular enquiry before awarding the said penalty, the C
order of the Tribunal is liable to be sustained on the ground of violation of
principles of natural justice.

Rule 55-B (a) of the U. P. C. C. A. Rules, it is obvious, does not
exclude or prohibit the observa:ice of the principles of natural justice. It
only says, it is not obligatory to either frame fonnal charges or to call for D
the explanation of the concerned employee before imposing the penalty of •
censure. The nonnal rule enunciated by this Court is that wherever it is
necessary to ensure against the failure of justice, principles of natural
justice must be read into a provision. Such a course, of course, is not
pennissible where the rule excludes, either expressly or by necessary E
intendment, the application of the principles of natural justice but in that
event validity of Rule may fall for consideration. Consistent with the above
rule, we must hold that, ordinarily speaking, an opportunity to show cause
against the proposed imposition of penalty of censure should be given to
the concerned employee before its imposition. Censure is a penalty. It
cannot also be said that it has no adverse consequences; it has. Hence, the F
necessity to read the said principles. It would certainly be open to the
competent authority in a given case to provide a post-decisional opportunity
instead of a pre-decisional hearing. (There may indeed be exceptional
situations where the principles of natural justice may have to be dispensed
with, but they are an exception.) It is upto the competent authority to decide
whether in the given circumstances the opportunity to be provided should G
be a prior one or a post-decisional opportunity. Nonnal rule, of course, is
prior opportunity.

In the case before us admittedly prior opportunity of hearing or to
show cause ag\\inst the action proposed was not given to the respondent. It
was also not brought to the notice of the Tribunal or the High Court that a H
354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 6 S.C.R

A post-decisional hearing was given to respondent. Mr. Gaurab Banerjee
sought to contend that in this case post-decisional hearing was indeed
given. But in the absence of any such plea being taken either before the
Tribunal or before the High Court, we are not inclined to pennit the learned
counsel to put forw~rd the said factual plea at this stage. For the above
reasons, it is not possible to agree with the decision of the Allahabad High
B Court In J. P. Aggarwal.

The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No Costs.

G.N. Appeal dismissed.

l-