CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3781 of 1999 PETITIONER: STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. RESPONDENT: K.P. NARAYANAN K.UTTY DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/01/2003 BENCH: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL & H.K. SEMA JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
2003 (1) SCR 391
The following Order of the Court was delivered.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 11th March, 1999 passed by
the Division Bench of the High Court affirming the order passed by the
learned Single Judge. The respondent herein was working as a Manager,
Grade-I in the appellant Bank. On the allegations of certain misconduct and
irregularities, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by the
appellants. Several charges were framed against him. The Enquiry Officer,
after conducting enquiry, submitted a report holding that some of the
charges were proved, some of the charges were partly proved and some of the
charges were not proved. The disciplinary authority, while accepting the
finding of the Enquiry Officer to the extent that some charges were proved
and some of the charges were not proved, however, did not agree with the
report of the Enquiry officer as regards the finding that the charges were
partly proved. The disciplinary authority held that those were fully
proved. In that view, on consideration of the material, the disciplinary
authority recommended for dismissal of the respondent from service.
Accepting the said recommendation, the competent authority passed an order
of dismissal from service. The respondent unsuccessfully appealed against
the order of dismissal to the authorities. Thereafter, he filed a writ
petition before the High Court challenging the order of dismissal from
service. The learned single Judge of the High Court, after hearing learned
counsel for the parties, allowed the writ petition accepting the contention
that no opportunity was given to the respondent by the disciplinary
authority in regard to the charges with which the findings of the Enquiry
officer were not agreed to by the disciplinary authority in the light of
the judgment of this Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and Ors v.
Kunj Behari Misra, [1998] 7 SCC 84. The appellants took the matter in
appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court. The Division Bench
of the High Court did not find any good or valid reason to differ from the
conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge and dismissed the appeal
following the judgment of the Punjab National Bank aforesaid. Hence this
appeal.
Mr. R. Sundaravaradan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants
strongly contended that providing further opportunity to the respondent by
the disciplinary authority, even if it were to disagree with ‘the findings
of the Enquiry Officer, was not necessary in terms of the regulations
governing service conditions of the respondent; not providing an
opportunity by the disciplinary authority did not prejudice the case of the
respondent in any way. As such the high Court was not justified in setting
aside the order of dismissal, particularly, when the respondent had the
opportunity before the Enquiry Officer to put forth his case. He also made
efforts to distinguish with the case of Punjab National Bank (supra)
stating that providing an opportunity would not apply to cases prior to the
case of Union of India and Ors. v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, [1991] 1 SCC 588. He
added that this Court in Punjab National Bank case did not deal with the
contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-Bank in this
regard. He relied on the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in State
of Orissa v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra, [1963] Supp. 1 SCR 648.
Per contra, Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, learned senior counsel representing the
respondent made submissions supporting and justifying the impugned order.
He said that the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Bidyabhushan
Mohapatra, above mentioned, is distinguishable; that was a case where this
Court set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court in regard to
the penalty imposed even on the proved charges. In the present case it is
clear from the order of the learned single Judge as well as that of the
Division Bench of the High Court that the High Court did not go into the
merits of other contentions or the factual aspects. The parties also
focused th