http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: STATE OF U.P.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: VIJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT07/12/1994

BENCH: (B.P. JEEVAN REDDY & SUJATA V.MANOHAR.JJ.)

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: 1.   Leave granted. 2.   Rule  49  of  the U.P.  Civil  Service  (Classification Control And Appeal) Rules, 1930 provides that for good and 404 sufficient  reasons  and in accordance  with  the  procedure prescribed  by those Rules, penalties specified therein  may be  imposed  upon members of the service.   The  punishments specified   in  Rule  49  include  (i)  Censure   and   (ii) Withholding   of   increments  including  stoppage   at   an efficiency bar. 3.Rule  55-B(a)  provides that "(a) Whenever  the  punishing authority is satisfied that good and sufficient reasons  ex- ist for adopting such a course it may Impose the penalty of-               (i)   censure, 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." 4.   The Allahabad High Court has opined in the order  under appeal  that  awarding  censure  without  affording  an  op- portunity to the effected 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 UP. v. Rajendra Kumar  Srivastava  (1989 S.C.D.137). The High Court has also observed towards the end of  its judgment that the censure entry also appears  to  be vague and lacking in particulars. 5.   Shri   Gaurab   Banerjee,  learned  counsel   for   the appellant-state contends on the strength of another decision of  the  Allahabad  High Court in  J.P.  Aggarwal,  Regional Transport  Officer,  Dehradun v. State of  UP.  through  the Secretary. Transport Department, Lucknow And Other (1973 (1) S.L.R). 194) that no such opportunity need be given and that the  awarding  of censure without such  opportunity  is  not liable  to  be  quashed  on  the  ground  of  violation   of principles of natural Justice.  The learned counsel  submits that  Rule  55-B  (a)  expressly provides  that  it  is  not necessary either to frame formal charges or to call for  the explanation  of the concerned government employee where  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

penalty  of  censure  is proposed to  be  awarded.   Counsel further  submitted  that  validity  of  the  Rule  was   not questioned by the respondent before the High Court. 6.   The   respondent  is  member  of  U.P.  Civil   Service (Executive  Branch).   During  the period  1989-90,  he  was working as the Additional District Magistrate (Executive) at Gyanpur  in  District  Varanasi.   On  the  ground  that  he pressurized  the  carpet  traders of that  areas  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  Service (Tribunal)  Act  1976.   The  Tribunal  allowed  the   claim petition  holding  that awarding the censure  entry  without making  a full oral enquiry as provided by the  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 order of the 405 Tribunal  is  liable  to  be  sustained  on  the  ground  of violation of principles of natural Justice. 7.   Rule  55-B (a) of the U.P.C.C.A. Rules, it  is  obvious does   not  exclude  or  prohibit  the  observance  of   the principles  of  natural justice.  It only says,  it  is  not obligatory to either frame-formal charges or to call for the explanation  of the concerned employee before  imposing  the penalty  of  censure.  The normal rule  enunciated  by  this Court  is that wherever it is necessary too  ensure  against the  failure of justice, principles of natural justice  must be read into a provisions.  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 Rule may  fail 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 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  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 be a prior one or a  post- decisional  opportunity.  Normal rule, of course,  is  prior opportunity. 8.   In the case before us admittedly prior  opportunity  of hearing or 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.   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 permit the learned  coun- sel to put forward the said factual plea at this stage.  For the  above  reasons, it is not possible to  agree  with  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

decision of the Allahabad High Court in J.P. Aggarwal. 9.   The Appeal is accordingly dismissed.  No costs. 406