Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Anr vs R. K Sareen on 24 January, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 24.01.2012
+ W.P.(C) 476/2012
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ... Petitioners
versus
R. K SAREEN ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr V. S. R. Krishna with Mr Kumar Rajesh Singh
For the Respondent : None
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.08.2011 in OA
760/2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
Delhi, whereby the Tribunal concluded as under:-
"9. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the
case of S.K. Kapoor (supra), leaving other grounds open, we are of
the view that the impugned order is required to be set aside and
matter is required to be remitted back to the disciplinary authority
on the limited ground that the disciplinary authority shall pass fresh
order after taking into consideration the objections to be filed by the
applicant against the report submitted by the UPSC, copy of which
has already been made available to the applicant along with the
aforesaid impugned order. The applicant is directed to file
objections to the report of the UPSC within a period of one month
from today. In case, such objections are filed by the applicant
within the aforesaid stipulated period, in that eventuality,
disciplinary authority shall consider the same and pass reasoned
and speaking order within a period of two months from the date of
receipt a copy of this order.
10. The OA is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs."
2. One of the pleas taken by the respondent was that the copy of the UPSC
advice was not supplied to the respondent before the competent authority passed
the order which was impugned before the Tribunal. It was further contended that
although the said copy was not supplied to the respondent, the competent
authority had placed reliance on the said UPSC advice.
3. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner herein, had sought support from
the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. T. V. Patel:
2007 (4) SCC 785. However, the Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in a
subsequent decision in the case of Union of India v. S. K. Kapoor: 2011 (4) SCC
589 took the view that the decision in Union of India v. T. V. Patel (supra) was
per incuriam inasmuch as the earlier decision in the case of S. N. Narula v.
Union of India & Others: Civil Appeal No.642 of 2004 decided on 30th
January, 2004, had not been considered in Union of India v. T. V. Patel (supra).
Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. S. K. Kapoor
(supra), the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the non-supply of the UPSC
advice to the respondent prior to the competent authority taking the decision,
which was relied upon by the competent authority, was not appropriate.
4. It is in these circumstances that the Tribunal passed the directions which
are extracted above. We see no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order. A
similar issue had arisen before us in Union of India v. Yogita Swaroop: WP(C)
265/2012 on 13.01.2012, wherein we had observed as under:-
"5. It is apparent that the advice of the UPSC has been relied
upon entirely. The fact that the UPSC advice was not given to the
respondent prior to the order dated 26.11.2009 being passed clearly
indicates that she has been denied an opportunity to make a
representation against the said advice and to submit her point of
view. Consequently, insofar as the question of prejudice is
concerned, it is writ large in the facts and circumstances of this
case. The Tribunal's order, therefore, cannot be faulted on this
aspect of the matter."
5. Consequently, following the same line of thought, this writ petition is
liable to be dismissed. It is ordered accordingly.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
V.K. JAIN, J
JANUARY 24, 2012
SR
