Supreme Court upholds natural justice in dismissal appeal, highlights need for material disclosure

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal challenging the dismissal order of an employee for absence without leave. The Court upheld the principle of natural justice, emphasizing that in departmental proceedings, an employee must be provided with any material to be relied upon in advance for rebuttal. Failure to provide the employee with a copy of the Union Public Service Commission report violated natural justice. The Court found the decision to dismiss the appeal as per incuriam due to not following the precedent of referring the matter to a larger bench for a different view.

---

---

Issues involved: Appeal against dismissal order, violation of natural justice in departmental proceedings.

Dismissal Order Challenge: The respondent was charge sheeted for absence without leave, leading to a dismissal order on 01.11.2001. The Central Administrative Tribunal quashed the dismissal order and directed to proceed from the stage of providing a copy of the Report of the Union Public Service Commission.

Writ Petition and Impugned Order: The appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court of Gujarat against the Tribunal's order, which was dismissed. The Supreme Court found no infirmity in the impugned order.

Principle of Natural Justice: It is a settled principle that in departmental proceedings, a charge sheeted employee must be provided with any material to be relied upon in advance to have a chance to rebut it. The Court disagreed with the appellant's argument that supplying the report along with the dismissal order was valid based on a previous decision.

Union Public Service Commission Report: The Court held that if authorities consult and rely on the Commission's report for disciplinary action, the employee must be given a copy in advance for rebuttal to adhere to natural justice principles. Failure to provide the report in such cases would violate natural justice.

Precedent and Judgment: The Court referred to a previous case where it was established that if a subsequent bench wants to take a different view, it must refer the matter to a larger bench. Since the decision in the present case was not in line with the prior decision, it was considered per incuriam, and the appeal was dismissed accordingly.

---