UNION OF INDIA & OTHERSversusS.K. KAPOOR

                         (2011) 3 S.C.R. 906


A                   UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
                                  v.
                            S.K. KAPOOR
                   (Civil Appeal No. 5341 of 2006)

                          MARCH 16, 2011
B
    [MARKANDEY KATJU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]

       Service Law - Departmental enquiry- Supply of the copy
  of the material relied upon in departmental proceedings to the
C charge sheeted employee in advance - Held: Is necessary,
  so that he may have a chance to rebut the same - Although
  Article 320(3)(c) is not mandatory, if the authorities consult the
  Union Public Service Commission and rely on its report for
  taking disciplinary action, then the principles of natural justice
D require that a copy of the report must be supplied in advance
  to the employee concerned so that he may have an
  opportunity of rebuttal - On facts, the report of the Commission
  was not supplied to the employee concerned in advance and
  therefore, the dismissal order was rightly quashed by the
E courts below - Principles of natural justice - Constitution of
  India, 1950 - Article 320(3)(c).
           Constitution of India, 1950-Article 141 - If a subsequent
    co ..ordinate bench of equal strength wants to take a different
    view from the prior decision of a co-ordinate bench, it can only
F   refer the matter to a larger bench - Otherwise the prior
    decision of a co-ordinate bench is binding on the subsequent
    bench of equal strength.
         Union of India vs. T. V. Patel (2007) 4 SCC 785 - held
G   per incuriam

         S.N. Narula vs. Union of India and Ors. Civil Appeal
    No.642 of2004 decided on 30th January, 2004 - relied on.


H                                 906
    UNION OF !NOIA & OTHERS v. S.K. KAPOOR                 907

                      Case Law Reference:                          A
    (2007) 4 sec 785             Held per incuriam. Para 8
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5341 of 2006.
                                                                   B
    From the Judgment & Order dated 25.4.2005 of the High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No.
7201 of 2005.
      S.W.A. Qadri and Sunita Sharma (for P. Parmeswaran)
for the Appellant.                                        C

     Haresh Raichura and Shashi Juneja for the Respondent.

    The following Order of the Court was delivered
                          ORDER                                    D

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

     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.                 ·                       F

     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 G
Report of the Union Public Service Commission.
    Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the appellants
herein filed a writ petition .in the High Court of Gujarat at
                                                                   H
    908      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2011) 3 S.C.R.


A   Ahmedabad being Special Civil Application No.7201 of 2005,
    which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Hence, this
    appeal.

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

          It is a settled principle of natural justice that if any material
    is to be relied upon in departmental proceedings, a copy of the
    same must be supplied in advance to the charge sheeted
    employee so that he may have a chance to rebut the same.
c
         Mr. Qadri, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
    the copy of the Report of the Union Public Service Commission
    was supplied to the respondent-employee along with the
    dismissal order. He submitted that this is valid in view of the
o   decision of this Court in Union of India vs. TV.Patel, (2007) 4
    sec 785.
          We do not agree.
        In the af;;resaid decision, it has been observed in para 25
E that 'the provisions of Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution of
  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 the
F principles of natural justice require that a copy of the report must
  be supplied in advance to the employee concerned so that he
  may have an opportunity of rebuttal. Thus, in our view, the
  aforesaid decision in T V.Pafel's case is clearly distinguishable.
       There may be a case where the report of the Union Public
G 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, if it
  is relied upon, then a copy of the same must be supplied in
  advance to the concerned employee, otherwise, there will be
H violation of the principles of natural justice.
       UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS v. S.K. KAPOOR                909

    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.

    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   8
 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 co-
ordinate bench is binding on the subsequef'lt. bench of equal
strength. Since, the decision in S.N,Narula's case (supra) was      C
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.
                                                                    D
     For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is dismissed.
Parties shall bear their own costs.
N.J.                                        Appeal dismissed.