- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bank Of India v. Apurba Kumar Saha .
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent, a Clerk-cum-Cashier at the Suliapada Branch of the appellant Bank of India, was subjected to a departmental enquiry in 1981 under clause 19.5(j) of the First Bipartite Settlement dated 19 October 1966. He orally denied the charges of misconduct but declined to file a written explanation or cross-examine witnesses as they were examined. Instead, he insisted that all prosecution witnesses be presented together for cross-examination. When the Enquiry Officer required cross-examination to proceed witness-by-witness, the respondent and his representative boycotted the enquiry.
Despite receiving copies of the recorded evidence and invitations to submit written arguments, the respondent did not participate further. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty, and the Zonal Manager (Disciplinary Authority) issued a show-cause notice before ordering his discharge with one month’s pay on 2 November 1987. The respondent’s departmental appeal was dismissed on 4 February 1989.
The Orissa High Court, in a writ petition filed by the respondent, held that the disciplinary proceedings violated principles of natural justice and accordingly quashed the orders of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities. The present Supreme Court appeal challenges that High Court decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the appellant bank violated principles of natural justice, thereby justifying the High Court’s interference.
- Whether the respondent, after declining to avail himself of procedural opportunities, could later claim denial of reasonable opportunity in defence.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the record of disciplinary proceedings and found no breach of natural justice. Key points in its analysis include:
- The respondent consciously avoided submitting a written defence and refused to participate in cross-examination when procedurally required.
- Copies of witness testimony and opportunities to file written arguments were duly provided; the respondent nonetheless chose not to respond.
- A party who deliberately declines to utilise procedural safeguards cannot later allege denial of a reasonable opportunity or invoke principles of natural justice to invalidate the proceedings.
Consequently, the Court deemed the High Court’s conclusion of natural-justice violation “wholly unjustified.”
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; High Court order set aside; respondent’s writ petition dismissed.
The immediate effect is reinstatement of the Disciplinary Authority’s order discharging the respondent from service. The decision does not establish new legal precedent but reaffirms that an employee who repudiates procedural opportunities cannot later claim violation of natural justice. No order as to costs was made.
N. Venkatachala, J.— Leave is granted. Learned counsel on both sides are heard.
2. Order of Orissa High Court setting aside the order made by the appellant-Bank of India discharging the respondent from its employment has been impugned in this appeal.
3. In the year 1981, the appellant-Bank ordered a departmental enquiry against the respondent, who was a Clerk-cum-Cashier in its Suliapada Branch in accordance with clause 19.5(j) of the First Bipartite Settlement dated October 19, 1966. The respondent was called upon by the Enquiry Officer to answer the charges of misconduct levelled against him. The respondent, instead of filing a written explanation answering the charges, denied them orally. He did not cross-examine the witnesses of the Bank as and when each of them was examined-in-chief. He wanted the Enquiry Officer to complete the examination-in-chief of all the Bank's witnesses and make them available for cross-examination at once. Since the Enquiry Officer wanted the respondent or his representative to cross-examine the witnesses of the Bank as and when each of them was examined-in-chief, both of them boycotted the inquiry. The copies of the evidence of Bank's witnesses recorded by the Enquiry Officer in the absence of the respondent and his representative, were, however, sent to the respondent and his representative. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer also sent letters to the respondent and his representative to file his written arguments, if any. Recorded evidence and letters of the Enquiry Officer although received by the respondent and his representative, they did not respond. The Enquiry Officer prepared his report of inquiry, on the basis of evidence recorded by him. In that report he found the respondent guilty of the charges levelled against him and sent the same to the Disciplinary Authority. The Zonal Manager, Orissa Zone, who was to act as Disciplinary Authority, agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Report. Consequently, he issued a show-cause notice to the respondent calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from the Bank's service on the basis of the Inquiry findings which were accepted by him. In the reply sent to this show-cause notice, the respondent requested for exonerating him from the charges levelled against him. But the Disciplinary Authority, which did not accept the reply, ordered discharge of the respondent from appellant-Bank's service with one month's pay and allowances purporting to act under clause 19(5)(j) of the First Bipartite Settlement and made an order accordingly on November 2, 1987. Appeal of the respondent filed against that order before the Appellate Authority was dismissed on February 4, 1989. The Orissa High Court by its order made in a writ petition filed by the respondent, found that the principles of natural justice were violated in the course of holding the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent and set aside the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority.
4. Having regard to the arguments addressed by learned counsel on both sides we have gone through the papers and seen that the High Court's view that there was violation of principles of natural justice, in conducting the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent, was wholly unjustified. The records of the disciplinary proceedings show that the respondent had avoided filing of the written explanation for the charges of misconduct levelled against him and also had for no valid reason refused to participate in the disciplinary proceedings. A bank employee who had refused to avail of the opportunities provided to him in a disciplinary proceeding of defending himself against the charges of misconduct involving his integrity and dishonesty, cannot be permitted to complain later that he had been denied a reasonable opportunity of defending himself of the charges levelled against him and the disciplinary proceeding conducted against him by the Bank-employer had resulted in violation of principles of natural justice of fair hearing.
5. Hence we are constrained to hold that the order of the High Court impugned in this appeal is liable to be interfered with and set aside.
6. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondent in the High Court.
7. However, in the facts of the case, we make no order as to costs.
Alert