- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
S.K Singh v. Central Bank Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The petition challenged a judgment of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench dated 13-3-1996 in LPA No. 80 of 1996. The petitioner was working as a Branch Manager in the respondent-Bank. A cash shortage of Rs 20,000 was found in the branch, leading to initiation of disciplinary proceedings. An enquiry was conducted, after which the petitioner was removed from service.
The petitioner challenged the removal order through an internal appeal (dismissed), then by a writ petition before a learned Single Judge of the High Court (dismissed), and thereafter by an appeal in which the dismissal was confirmed by the Division Bench. The present proceeding was a special leave petition against the Division Bench judgment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the disciplinary removal/dismissal was vitiated because the petitioner was not supplied with a copy of the enquiry report, and whether the absence of demonstrated prejudice prevented interference with the punishment.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner contended (through counsel Shri Khanduja) that since the law requires supply of the enquiry report as a precondition for disciplinary action, the proper course was to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727, (1993) 25 ATC 704 | Supply of a copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent employee is required to enable representation against proposed action/punishment; the disciplinary authority must consider such representation before deciding on punishment. | The High Court applied the precedent by examining whether non-supply caused prejudice to the petitioner; finding no adequate explanation of prejudice, it declined interference. The Supreme Court agreed that, on the facts, the High Court’s approach disclosed no illegality. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that the sole controversy raised before the High Court concerned non-supply of the enquiry report. The High Court (both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench) considered the effect of the Constitution Bench decision in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar and specifically asked the petitioner to explain what prejudice he suffered due to non-supply of the report.
Because the petitioner did not provide an adequate explanation of prejudice, the High Court concluded that, although the report had not been supplied, the case did not warrant interference on the facts in the absence of proven prejudice. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner reiterated that remand to the disciplinary authority was the appropriate course when the report is not supplied.
The Supreme Court acknowledged the general legal position that the enquiry report should be supplied to enable the employee to make a representation and for the authority to consider it before determining the punishment. However, it emphasized that in the present case the petitioner had been specifically asked by both levels of the High Court to show prejudice, and he failed to satisfy the courts on that point. On these facts, the Supreme Court found no illegality in the High Court’s decision.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED: The special leave petition was dismissed.
The direct consequence was that the High Court’s refusal to interfere with the petitioner’s removal from service remained undisturbed. The order indicates that, in this case, the courts treated the absence of demonstrated prejudice as decisive despite the non-supply of the enquiry report; the opinion does not state any broader implications or that any new precedent was set.
Order
1. This petition is filed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench made on 13-3-1996 in LPA No. 80 of 1996.
2. The admitted position is that the petitioner was working as a Branch Manager in the respondent-Bank. A sum of Rs 20,000 was found to be short in cash of the branch. Therefore, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and an enquiry was conducted and he was removed from service. He challenged the order of his removal in an appeal which was dismissed; the writ petition filed by him was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court and on appeal, it was confirmed.
3. The only controversy raised in the High Court was that as he was not supplied with the copy of the enquiry report, the order of dismissal was bad in law. The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have considered the effect of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727, (1993) 25 ATC 704. The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court had asked the petitioner as to what prejudice the petitioner had suffered for non-supply thereof. Since there was no adequate explanation offered by the petitioner, the High Court came to the conclusion that though the copy of the report was not supplied, on the facts, as no prejudice was proved, it was not a case warranting interference.
4. It is contended by Shri Khanduja, learned counsel for the petitioner, that since this Court has laid down the law that supply of copy of the enquiry report is a precondition for a competent officer to take disciplinary action, the appropriate course would have been to send back the case to the disciplinary authority. For this course, normally there is no quarrel, as this Court had settled the law that a copy of the report needs to be supplied to the delinquent employee to enable him to make representation against the proposed action or punishment and, thereafter, the authority is required to consider that explanation offered by the petitioner and then to take decision on the quantum of punishment. In this case, though copy of the report was not supplied, he was asked by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench as to what prejudice he suffered on account of non-supply of the report; but he was not able to satisfy the learned Judges as to the prejudice caused to him on account of non-supply of the enquiry report. On the facts, we find that there is no illegality in the decision taken by the High Court.
5. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
Alert