Holding

A copy of the UPSC advice must be furnished along with the final disciplinary order; Article 320(3)(c) is not mandatory and does not give a cause of action, so non‑supply before the order does not invalidate the penalty.

Summary

The case concerned a government servant, T.V. Patel, who was penalised for alleged misconduct after a departmental inquiry. The disciplinary authority sought advice from the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and, after receiving it, imposed a penalty, attaching a copy of the UPSC advice to the final order. The Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court set aside the penalty on the ground that the UPSC advice had not been furnished to the servant before the order was passed, alleging a breach of natural justice. The Supreme Court held that Rule 32 of the CCS/CCA Rules requires the advice to be supplied only along with the final order, not beforehand, and that Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution does not make such consultation mandatory nor confer enforceable rights on the servant. Consequently, the non‑supply of the advice prior to the order does not vitiate the disciplinary action. The appeals were allowed, the lower courts' orders were set aside, and the matters were remitted for consideration of the remaining grounds.

Issues considered

Whether a copy of the UPSC advice must be furnished to the delinquent government servant before the final disciplinary order is passed.
Whether Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution makes consultation with the UPSC mandatory and confers a right enforceable in court.
Whether the non‑supply of the UPSC advice vitiates the disciplinary order on grounds of natural justice.
Interpretation of Rule 32 of the CCS/CCA Rules regarding the timing of furnishing the UPSC advice.

Legislation cited

Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964s. Rule 11, s. Rule 15(3), s. Rule 32
Constitution of Indias. Article 320(3)(c)

Subjects

disciplinary proceedingsUPSC adviceArticle 320natural justiceservice lawRule 32copy of adviceprocedural fairnesscivil servantpenalty

Judgment

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. A
v.
T.V.PATEL

APRIL 19, 2007

[H.K. SEMA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] B
--{

CCS CCA Rules-Rule 32-Disciplinary proceedings-Against
Government employee-Imposition of penalty after considering the advice by
Union Public Service Commission-Copy of advice sent to delinquent official C
alongwith copy of the final order-Disciplinary proceedings held vitiated by
courts below on the ground of non-supply of copy of advice before passing
offinal order-On appeal, held: In view of the language of the rule the copy
of advice is to be supplied with the final order-The provisions ofArticle 320
(3) (c) of the Constitution are not mandatory-Absence of consultation or
irregularity in that process or in furnishing a copy of the advice by UPSC D
does not afford the delinquent government servant a cause of action before
Court of law-Matters remitted back to the respective Courts wherein matter
was decided only on the ground of non-supply of the advice-Constitution
of India, 1950-Article 320 (3) (c )-Service law-Disciplinary Proceedings.

In the present cases, in Departmental Inquiry of the employees of E
appellant-State, advice of Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) was
sought Thereafter considering the advice of UPSC penalty was imposed. A
copy of the advice ofUPSC was sent to the delinquent officials alongwith the
final order.

Original applications were filed in Central Administrative Tribunals. F
Some cases were decided by the Tribunal taking into consideration all the
points, while in some areas Tribunal took into consideration only one ground
and held the disciplinary proceedings vitiated as the copy of advice by UPSC
was not provided to the appellant before passing of final order.
G
In appeals High Court, disposed of the matter only on the ground of non-
supply of copy of advice by UPSC before passing of the order.

In appeal to this Court, the question for consideration was whether a
copy of advice tendered by UPSC is to be furnished with final order of penalty
373 H
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 5 S.C.R.

A or before passing of the final order. "-
...._ t

Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to the Tribuna~ the Court

HELD: 1. The language employed in Rule 32 of CCA CCS Rules, namely
"along with a copy of the order passed in the case, by the authority making
B the order" would mean the fmal order passed by the authority imposing penalty
on the delinquent government servant. [Para 17) (378-E)
>--
State Bank of India v. D.C. Aggarwal, [1993) 1 SCC and Managing
,._
Director, ECIL, Hyderabadv. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727, distinguished.

c 2. The provisions of Article 320(3)(c ) of the Constitution oflndia are
not mandatory and they do not confer any rights on the public servant so that
the absence of consultation or any irregularity in consultation process or
furnishing a copy of the advice tendered by the UPSC, if any, does not afford
the delinquent government servant a cause of action in a court of law.
[Para 24) (382-DI
D
State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, [1958) SCR 533, followed.
~-

Ram Gopal Chaturvedi v. State ofMadhya Pradesh, 11969) 2 SCC 240,
relied on.

E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2067 of2007.

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.12.2004 of the High Court of
Gujrat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No. 17027 of2004.

WITH
F
C.A. No. 2071, 2072, 2068, 2070, 2069 of2007 & 3628 of2006.

B. Datta and Vikas Singh, ASGs., Vimla Sinha, Satyakam Prakash, V.K.
Verma, Sandhya Goswami, B.V. Balaram Das for the Appellants.

G Sumeer Kumar Shrivastava, Nanda Sinha and S.K. Verma for the
Respondents in C.A. No. 2068 of 2007.
~

Vijay Panjwani for the Respondents in C.A. No. 2069 of 2007.

Nikhil Majithia and Prashant Kumar for the Respondents in C.A. No.
H 2071 of2007.
U.0.1. v. T.V.PATEL [H.K. SEMA,J.] 375
-.....,,
>c V.N. Raghupathy and Ranji Thomas for the Respondents in C.A. No. A
2072 of2007.

T.V. Patel Respondent-In-Person in C.A. No. 2067 of2007.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
H.K. SEMA, J. I. Leave granted.

2. These appeals preferred by the Union of India arise out of a common
question of facts and law and they are being disposed of this common order.
The facts are identical. For the sake of brevity we are taking facts from S.L.P
(C)No.11651 of2005. C
3. The facts in compendium are as follows:

4. The respondent was functioning as SDO (Phone) at Navsari Telephone
Exchange. He was found to have been involved in providing telephone
connection in contravention of the P & T Manual thereby causing huge D
avoidable financial loss to the Department. A memorandum and the article
of charges framed against the respondent are coined in identical in language.
A memorandum dated 30.06.1997 along with the substance of imputation of
conduct was served on the respondent.

5. The statement of article of charge framed against the respondent are E
as follows:-

"That the said Shri T.V. Patel while functioning as SOOP, Navsari,
during the period 1996-96, deliberately provided seven telephone
connections from Navsari Telephone Exchange to subscribers of
Munsad Village falling within the local area of Ugat Telephone F
Exchange, with ulterior motive and in contravention of Paras 1l(A) &
(B) of P&T Manual Vol.XII, Part-I; and the connections thus irregularly
provided, had to be got closed by the Telecom District Manager,
Valsad. The said Shri T.V. Patel thereby caused a huge avoidable loss
to the Department by incurring unnecessary expenditure towards stores G
and labour. Thus by his above acts, the said Shri T.V. Patel committed
grave misconduct, failed to maintain absolute integrity, exhibited lack
of devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government
servant, thereby contravening Rule 3(1 )(i), (ii) and (iii) of the CCS
(Conduct) Rules, 1964."
H
376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A 6. List of documents and prosecution witnesses sought to be relied
during the inquiry were also supplied along with the article of charge. •
7. During the inquiry the respondent was given an opportunity of fair
hearing and the Inquiry Officer submitted its report holding that the charges
were not proved. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the report and
B issued a notice to the respondent providing the reasons for disagreement and
calling upon the respondent to make representation, if any, by its order dated
1.4.1999. On 4.5.1999, the respondent made a representation to the said
notice. This was rejected.

8. The Disciplinary Authority, thereafter, sought the advice of the Union
C Public Service Commission (UPSC) and after considering the advice of the
UPSC imposed a penalty of reduction of pay by one stage in the time scale
of pay till 30.J 1.2001, without cumulative effect by an order dated 15.J 1.2000.
A copy of the advice obtained from UPSC was also sent along with the final
order of penalty.
D
9. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed O.A.No.96 of2001 challenging
the final order passed on 15.11.2000 before the Central Administrative Tribunal
j. .
(CAT) Ahmedbad Bench on various grounds. The Tribunal after considering
various grounds urged before it, set aside the order dated 15.11.2000 passed
by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the penalty. One of the grounds,
E which persuaded the Tribunal to come to the aforesaid conclusion, is recorded
in paragraph 12 of the judgment:

"We also note that the copy of UPSC advice was not made available
to the applicant. Under the circumstances we quash and set aside of
the penalty imposed on the applicant and direct the respondents to
F take a decision after supplying a copy of the UPSC report and having
regard to principles stated in para I 0 & 11 above. The. OA is allowed
with these directions. No costs."

10. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant unsuccessfully filed Special Civil
Application being No.17027 of 2004 before the High Court urging various
G grounds. The High Court dismissed the Special Civil Application on the sole
ground that a copy of advice tendered by the UPSC was not supplied to the
delinquent officer to enable him to represent. According to the High Court,
the said advice tendered by the UPSC, a copy of which should be made
available to the delinquent officer so as to enable him to afford an effective
H representation to the punishment proposed and such advice tendered by the
U.0.1. v. T.V.PATEL [H.K. SEMA.J,] 377
UPSC a copy of which having not been supplied to the delinquent officer A
before the order of imposing a penalty was passed, there is violation of
principles of natural justice and vitiates the inquiry.

11. Admittedly, in the present case, the UPSC tendered its advice and
a copy of the advice tendered by the UPSC was sent along with the copy of
the final order dated 15.11.2000 imposing the penalty, to the delinquent officer. B
- t 12. The question that calls for determination is as to whether a copy of
the advice tendered by the UPSC is to be furnished along with the order of
penalty or before the passing of an order imposing final penalty.

13. In Swamy's Compilation ofCCS CCA Rules, Rule 15 deals with the C
action on the inquiry report.

Sub-rule (3) of Rule 15 reads as under:

"(3) If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on all
or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that any of the D
penalties specified in Clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 11 should be imposed
on the Government servant, it shall, notwithstanding anything
contained in Rule 16, make an order imposing such penalty:

Provided that in every case where it is necessary to consult th!!
Commission, the record of the inquiry shall be forwarded by the E
Disciplinary Authority to the Commission for its advice and such
advice shall be taken into consideration before making any order
imposing any penalty on the Government servant.

14. Part IX of the CCS Rules deals with Miscellaneous. Rule 32 deals
with Supply of copy of Commission's advice. It reads: F
"Whenever the Commission is consulted as provided in these rules,
a copy of the advice by the Commission and where such advice has
not been accepted, also a brief statement of the reasons for such non-
acceptance, shall be furnished to the Government servant concerned
along with a copy of the order passed in the case, by the authority G
making the order."

15. In the aforesaid premises, Mr. B. Datta, learned ASG, contended that
a consultation with the UPSC under Article 320 (3)(c) is not mandatory and
the advice tendered, if any, by the UPSC is not binding on the Disciplinary H
378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A Authority. It is further contended that such advice would not confer any
rights on a pubic servant so that the absence of consultation or any irregularity
in consultation does not afford him a cause of action in a court of law. He
further contended that even otherwise Rule 32 of the Rules is clear that a
copy of such advice shall be furnished to the delinquent servant along with
B a copy of the order passed in the case, by the authority making the order.

16. There is substance in the contention of Mr. Datta, learned ASG.

17. As already noticed, Rule 32 of the Rules deals with the supply of
a copy of Commission's advice. Rules as read as it is mandatory in character. ,...
C Rule contemplates that whenever a Commission is consulted, as provided
under the Rules, a copy of the advice of the Commission and where such
advice has not been accepted, also a brief statement of the reasons for such
non-acceptance shall be furnished to the Government servant along with a
copy of the order passed in the case, by the authority making the order.
Reading of the Rule would show that it contemplates two situations; if a copy
D of advice is tendered by the Commission, the same shall be furnished to the
gcvernment servant along with a copy of the order passed in the case by the
authority maki!Jg the order. TI1e second situation is that if a copy of the -. _
advice tendered by the Commission has not been accepted, a copy of which
along with a brief statement of the reasons for such non-acceptance shall also
be furnished to the government servant along with a copy of the order passed
E in the case, by the authority making the order. In our view, the language
employed in Rule 32, namely "along with a copy of the order passed in the
case, by the authority making the order" would mean the final order passed
by the authority imposing penalty on the delinquent government servant.

18. Article 320 of the Constitution deals with the functions of Public
F Service Commission and provides that it shall be the duty of the Union and
the State Public Service Commissions to conduct examinations for
appointments to the services of the Union and the services of the State
respectively.

G .Article 320(3)(c) reads:-

(a) .............. .

(b) .............. .

(c) on all disciplinary matters affecting a person serving under the
H Government of India or the Government of a State in a civil capacity,
U.0.1. v. T.V. PATEL[H.K. SEMA,J.) 379

including memorials or petitions relating to such matters; A

Provided that the President as respects the all-India services and
also as respects other services and posts in connection with the B
affairs of the Union, and the Governor, as respects other services and
posts in connection with the affairs of a State, may make regulations
specifying the matters in which either generally, or in any particular
class of case or in any particular circumstances, it shall not be
necessary for a Public Service Commission to be consulted. C
19. A Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. v.
Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, [1958] SCR 533, considered the question as to
whether the consultation of the Commission under Article 320(3)(c) is
mandatory and binding on the appropriate authority.
D
20. The arguments that the non-compliance of Article 320(3)(c) vitiates
the order passed by the appropriate authority have been repelled by the Court
at SCR. pp 543-544:-

"Perhaps, because of the use of word "shall" in several parts of Art.
320, the High Court was led to assume that the provisions of Art. E
320(3)(c) were mandatory, but in our opinion, there are several cogent
reasons for holding to the contrary. In the first place, the proviso to
Art. 320, itself, contemplates that the President or the Governor, as the
case may be, "may make regulations specifying the matters in which
either generally, or in any particular class of case or in particular
circumstances, it shall not be necessary for a Public Service Commission F
to be consulted." The words quoted above give a clear indication of
the intention of the Constitution makers that they did envisage certain
cases or classes of cases in which the Commission need not be
consulted. If the provisions of Art. 320 were of a mandatory character,
the Constitution would not have left it to the discretion of the Head G
of the Executive Government to undo those provisions by making
regulations to the contrary. If it had been intended by the makers of
the Constitution that consultation with the Commission should be
mandatory, the proviso would not have been there, or, at any rate, in
the terms in which it stands. That does not amount to saying that it
is open to the Executive Government completely to ignore the existence H
A
380 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 5 S.C.R.

of the Commission or to pick and choose cases in which it may or may
not be consulted. Once, relevant regulations have been made, they are
meant to be followed in letter and in spirit and it goes without saying
.,
that consultation with the Commission on all disciplinary matters
affecting a public servant has been specifically provided for, in order,
first, to give an assurance to the Services that a wholly independent
B body, not directly concerned with the making of orders adversely
affecting public servants, has considered the action proposed to be
taken against a particular public servant, with an open mind; and,
secondly, to afford the Government unbiassed advice and opinion on
matters vitally affecting the morale of public services. It is, therefore,
c incumbent upon the Executive Government, where it proposes to take
any disciplinary action against a public servant, to consult the
Commission as to whether the action proposed to be taken was
justified and was not in excess of the requirements of the situation.

Secondly, it is clear that the requirement of the consultation with
D the Commission does not extend to making the advice of the
Commission on those matters, binding on the Government. Of course,
the Government, when it consults the Commission on matters like
these, does it, not by way of a mere formality, but, with a view to
getting proper assistance in assessing the guilt or otherwise of the
person proceeded against and of the suitability and adequacy of the
E penalty proposed to be imposed. If the opinion of the Commission
were binding on the Government, it may have been argued with
greater force that non-compliance with the rule for consultation would
have been fatal to the validity of the order proposed to be passed
against a public servant. In the absence of such a binding character,
F it is difficult to see how non-compliance with the provisions of Art.
320(3)(c) could have the effect of nullifying the final order passed by
the Government.
Thirdly, Art. 320 or the other articles in Chapter II of Part XIV of
the Constitution deal with the constitution of the Commission and
G appointment and removal of the Chairman or other members of the
Commission and their tern1s of service as also their duties and functions.
Chapter II deals with the relation between Government and the
Commission but not between the Commission and a public servant.
Chapter II containing Art. 320 does not, in terms, confer any rights
or privileges on an individual public servant nor any constitutional
H
U.0.1. V. T.V.PATEL(H.K.SEMA,J.] 381
guarantee of the nature contained in Chapter I of that Part, particularly A
·-..: Art. 311. Article 311, therefore, is not, in any way, controlled by the
provisions of Chapter II of Part XIV, with particular reference to Art.
1'
320.

"Finally, at page SCR p.547 it was held as under:
B
"We have already indicated that Art. 320(3)(c) of the Constitution
does not confer any rights on a public servant so that the absence
of consultation or any irregularity in consultation, should not afford
•.J him a cause of action in a court of Jaw, or entitle him to relief under
the special powers of a High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution
or of this Court under Art. 32. It is not a right which could be c
recognized and enforced by a writ. On the other hand, Art. 311 of the
Constitution has been construed as conferring a right on a civil
servant of the Union or a State, which he can enforce in a court of
Jaw. Hence, if the provisions of Art. 311, have been complied with in
this case - and it has hot been contended at any stage that they had D
not been complied with - he has no remedy against any irregularity
that the State Government may have committed. Unless, it can be held,
- ·" and we are not prepared to hold, that Art. 320(3)(c) is in the nature
of a rider or proviso to Art. 311, it is not possible to construe Art.
320(3 )( c) in the sense of affording a cause of action to a public
servant against whom some action has been taken by his employer." E

21. The decision of the Constitution Bench in Srivastava (supra) was
reiterated by a three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Gopal
Chaturvedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1969) 2 SCC 240, it was held in
paragraph 7 of the judgment as under:-
·_.+ F
"It was argued that the impugned order was invalid as it was passed
without consulting the State Public Service Commission under Article
320(3)(c) of the Constitution. There is no merit in this contention.
The case of State of U.P. v. ML. Srivastava 1958 SCR 533 decided
that the provisions of Article 320(3)(c) were not mandatory and did
not confer any rights on the public servant and that the absence of
G
consultation with the State Public Service Commission did not afford
him a cause of action."

22. Counsel for the -respondent contended that non-supply of a copy
of the advice tendered by the UPSC before the final order was passed H
382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 5 S.C.R.

A deprived the delinquent officer of making an effective representation and ~
therefore it vitiates the order. To support his contention he referred to the
decision of this Court rendered in the case of State Bank of India v. D.C.
Aggarwal, (1993] I SCC 13, where this Court held that the disciplinary authority,
while imposing punishment,_ major or minor, cannot act on material which is
B neither supplied nor shown to the delinquent. Imposition of punishment on
an employee, on material which is not only not supplied but not disclosed
to him, cannot be countenanced. Procedural fairness is as much essence of
right and liberty as the substantive law itself.

23. He also referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Managing
C Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar, (1993] 4 SCC 727, where this
·-
Court dealt with the non-furnishing of the inquiry report to the delinquent
officer. The facts of the aforesaid decision are distinguishable from the facts
of the case at hand. The aforesaid decisions are not relevant for the purpose
of adjudication of the case at hand.

D 24. In view of the law settled by the Constitution Bench of this Court
in the case of Srivastava (supra) we hold that the provisions of Article
320(3)(c) of the Constitution of India are not mandatory and they do not
confer any rights on the public servant so that the absence of consultation
or any irregularity in consultation process or furnishing a copy of the advice
tendered by the UPSC, if any, does not afford the delinquent government
E servant a cause of action in a court of law.

25. In the view that we have taken we allow these appeals. The orders
of the High Court and the Tribunal, to the extent indicated above, are set
aside. This takes us to consider as to whether the matter be remitted back
F to the High Court or the Tribunal to deal with the other various grounds
raised by the delinquent government officers.

CIVIL APPEAL ARISING OUT OF S.L.P.(C) NO. 11651 OF 2005 (Union
of India & Anr. v. T. V. Patel)

26. The Tribunal had elaborately dealt with the contentions of both
G
sides on merits. The Writ Petition of the Union of India before the High Court
also raised mar1y grounds to be dealt with on merits. However, the High
Court has only dealt with the question of non-supply of copy of advice
tendered by the UPSC before the passing of the order of punishment which
has already been dealt with by us. SCA No.17027 of 2004 is now restored
H to the file of the High Court. The matter is remitted back to the High Court
U.0.1. v. T.V.PATEL [H.K. SEMA,J.] 383
for disposal on merit on other grounds urged before the Court. A
CIVIL APPEAL ARISING OUT OF S.L.P.(C) NO. 19594 OF 2005 (Union
of India & Ors. v. Avinash Kumar Srivastava)

27. In this case also the High Court dismissed the SCA No. 15316 of
2004 filed by the appellant challenging the order of CAT. The High Court B
dismissed the writ petition solely on the ground of non-supply of copy of
advice tendered by the UPSC to the respondent before the final order was
passed. The respondent did not prefer any writ petition before the High
Court challenging the order of Tribunal. Many grounds were urged before
the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal decided the issue only on ground of
non-supply of copy of the advice tendered by the UPSC before the final order C
was passed. 0.A.No.206 of 2004 is restored to the file of the Tribunal and
is remitted back to the Tribunal to consider the other grounds urged before
the Tribunal.

CIVIL APPEAL ARISING OUT OF S.L.P.(C) NO. 26333 OF 2005 (Union D
of India & Ors. v. S.K. Agrawal)

28. Both the High Court and the Tribunal disposed of the case only on
the ground ofnon-supply of copy of the advice tendered by the UPSC to the
delinquent officer before the passing of the final order impinged the principles
of natural justice. The other grounds urged before the Tribunal in O.A.No.451 E
of 2003 have not been considered by the Tribunal. O.A.No.451 of 2003 is
restored to the file of the Tribunal and the matter is remitted back, to consider
on merits all other grounds urged before the Tribunal.

CIVIL APPEAL ARISING OUT OF S.L.P.(C) NO. 8470 OF 2006 (Union
of India & Ors. v. P.K. Saha & Anr.) F
29. In this case also the Tribunal has decided solely on the ground that
a copy of the advice tendered by the UPSC has not been furnished to the
delinquent government servant before the final order was ?assed. In view
of our order, 0.A.No.627 of 2000, is now restored to the file of the Tribunal
and the Tribunal shall now deal with the other grounds urged before the G
Tribunal on merits.

CIVIL APPEAL ARISING OUT OF S.L.P.(C) NO. 10225 OF 2006 (Union
of India & Ors. v. N.J. Paulose)
H
384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A 30. In this case, both the High Court and Tribunal disposed of the case
solely on the ground of non-supply of a copy of the advice tendered by the ~
UPSC before the final order was passed. In view of our order, 0.A.No.490
of 2002 is now restored to the file of the Tribunal and the matter is remitted
back to the Tribunal, to deal with the other grounds urged before it and pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law.
B
CIVIL APPEAL ARISING OUT OF S.L.P.(C) NO. 12656 OF 2006 (Union
of India & Ors. v. V.K. Sajnani)
..
31. The respondent has challenged the main order before the Tribunal
by filing O.A.No.208 of 2002. The Tribunal by an order dated 17.10.2003
..
c considered the entire grounds on merits and dismissed the petition. Aggrieved
thereby, he filed SCA No.1071 of2004 urging many grounds. The Division
bench of the High Court by the impugned order set aside the order of the
Tribunal solely on the ground of non-supply of copy of the advice tendered
by the UPSC before the final order was passed by the authority. The High
D Court has not decided other grounds urged before the High Court in SCA
No. I071 of 2004. In view of our order, SCA No. I071 of 2004 is now restored

·-
to the file of the High Court. The High Court shall decide the other grounds
urged before the High Court and dispose of the matter in accordance with law.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3628 OF 2006 (Union pf India v. Ashok Kumar
E Tiwari)

32. In this case, both the High Court and the Tribunal, disposed of the
matter only on the ground of non-supply of copy of advice tendered by the
UPSC before the final order was passed. In view of our order, 0.A.No.271
of2003, is now restored to the file of the Tribunal and the matter is remitted
F back. The Tribunal shall consider other grounds urged before it and pass
appropriate order in accordance with law.

33. The appeals are allowed in the above terms. No costs.

K.K.T. Appeals allowed.