- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Debotosh Pal Choudhury v. Punjab National Bank And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner, an officer of Punjab National Bank, was dismissed from service on 8 October 1988 after a departmental enquiry whose report was dated 26 September 1988. He challenged the dismissal in a writ petition before the High Court, alleging several violations of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977 and of principles of natural justice. A learned Single Judge allowed the writ, holding the enquiry vitiated. On appeal, a Division Bench reversed that decision and dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court by way of special leave, resulting in the present opinion.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the departmental enquiry was vitiated because the petitioner was denied inspection or copies of relied-upon documents.
- Whether refusal to permit examination of two witnesses (Shri S. C. Tandon and Shri A. K. Dey) violated the petitioner’s right to a fair hearing.
- Whether limitation of two days to file a written brief, instead of the 15 days contemplated in Regulation 6(18), amounted to procedural illegality.
- Whether failure to supply the enquiry report to the petitioner before imposing punishment rendered the dismissal invalid.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- He was not given reasonable opportunity to obtain or inspect material documents.
- Request to examine Shri S. C. Tandon and Shri A. K. Dey as defence witnesses was wrongly denied.
- Regulation 6(18) mandates 15 days to file a written brief; only two days were granted.
- Non-supply of the enquiry report before dismissal violated natural justice.
Respondents’ Arguments
- Copies/inspection of all requested documents had been furnished; petitioner acknowledged this on 18 July 1988.
- Request to examine the two officers was belated and their testimony irrelevant; allowing it would delay proceedings.
- Written briefs were optional; petitioner himself waived filing one unless the presenting officer filed; the presenting officer filed none.
- Because the dismissal pre-dated Union of India v. Ramzan Khan, failure to supply the enquiry report did not invalidate the order.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (1991) 1 SCC 588 | Requirement to furnish the enquiry report to the delinquent employee before imposing punishment, applied prospectively from 20-11-1990. | Since the petitioner was dismissed on 8-10-1988, prior to the judgment, non-supply of the report did not vitiate the dismissal. |
| Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727 | Further elaboration on the right to receive the enquiry report; held non-supply fatal only where prejudice is shown and for punishments after Ramzan Khan. | Reinforced the view that dismissals predating Ramzan Khan are unaffected by the omission; thus petitioner’s contention failed. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the entire enquiry record to determine whether the petitioner had a fair opportunity to defend himself.
- Access to Documents: The petitioner had inspected all documents listed by the presenting officer and confirmed this in writing on 18 July 1988. Therefore, no prejudice was shown.
- Rejection of Defence Witnesses: The request to examine Shri S. C. Tandon and Shri A. K. Dey surfaced only after the Bank closed its evidence; the Court characterised it as an after-thought. Their proposed testimony was considered irrelevant and potentially dilatory, so denial did not vitiate the enquiry.
- Time to File Written Brief: Regulation 6(18) makes filing written briefs discretionary (“may”). The petitioner expressly stated he had nothing further to add unless the presenting officer submitted a brief. As none was filed, the two-day period caused no prejudice; moreover, the petitioner did file a brief within that period.
- Non-supply of Enquiry Report: In light of Ramzan Khan and ECIL v. Karunakar, the requirement to furnish the report is prospective. Because dismissal occurred in 1988, the omission was immaterial.
- Overall Fairness: Any procedural deviations were either non-existent or caused no injustice; hence, the enquiry and resultant dismissal were upheld.
Holding and Implications
Special Leave Petition Dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the Division Bench’s judgment, thereby sustaining the petitioner’s dismissal from service.
Implications are confined to the parties: the petitioner remains dismissed and the Bank’s action stands validated. The decision applies established precedent without laying down new legal principles.
S. Rajendra Babu, J.— The petitioner before us was employed in the establishment of the first respondent Bank. He was dismissed from service by an order made on 8-10-1988 on the basis of an enquiry conducted by an enquiry officer and the report made on 26-9-1988. In challenging by way of a writ petition the order of dismissal the petitioner contended that the enquiry is vitiated as he did not have any reasonable opportunity to have the copies of the documents or inspection thereof; that he was not afforded an opportunity to adduce oral evidence by examining two witnesses, Shri S.C Tandon and Shri A.K Dey; that under Regulation 6(18) of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as “the Regulations”) 15 days' time should have been given to him for furnishing a written brief after completion of the production of evidence, but the enquiry officer gave him only two days' time; that the copy of the enquiry report was not given to him before imposing the punishment of dismissal.
2. The stand of the respondents is that full opportunity was given to the petitioner by either furnishing copies of documents or inspection thereof; that the production of oral evidence through Shri S.C Tandon and Shri A.K Dey was denied as such request was made at a belated stage and their evidence would be irrelevant to the enquiry; that the petitioner having been dismissed by an order made on 8-10-1988 before the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (1991) 1 SCC 588, (1991) 16 ATC 505, non-furnishing of a copy of the enquiry report would not affect the order of dismissal; that the petitioner having made oral submissions pleaded for grant of time to file written brief only in case the presenting officer also did so; that when the presenting officer did not file any written brief, question of the petitioner filing the same would not arise; that even otherwise, the petitioner did not ask for more time than granted and hence, cannot make a grievance of the same.
3. The learned Single Judge, inter alia, held that the disciplinary authority did not forward to the inquiring authority the documents and lists of witnesses before commencing the enquiry against the petitioner and accepted each one of the contentions raised by the petitioner and allowed the writ petition. On appeal, the Division Bench reversed the decision of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
4. Regulation 6(5) of the Regulations requires that the disciplinary authority shall, where it is not the inquiring authority, forward to the inquiry authority the following documents:
1. a copy of the articles of charge and statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour;
2. a copy of the written statement of defence, if any, submitted by the officer employee;
3. a list of documents by which and list of witnesses by whom the articles of charge are proposed to be substantiated;
4. a copy of the statement of the witnesses, if any;
5. evidence proving the delivery of the articles of charge under sub-regulation (3); and
6. a copy of the order appointing the “presenting officer” in terms of sub-regulation (6).
Fulfilment of some of the requirements of this Regulation is purely procedural in character. Unless in a given situation, the aggrieved party can make out a case of prejudice or injustice, mere infraction of this Regulation will not vitiate the entire enquiry.
5. The petitioner had been given documents for inspection as per the list given by the presenting officer and he made a statement on 18-7-1988 that he had verified all the documents and papers and inspected the documents as per the list given in the letter dated 24-5-1988. The inquiring authority allowed the petitioner to file a list of documents and as sought for by his letter dated 24-5-1988, the request for inspection or copies was also allowed. It is thereafter the enquiry officer has relied upon the documents produced by the presenting officer and adverted to various documents produced by the petitioner as well. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he did not have reasonable opportunity to inspect the documents is incorrect.
6. We have examined the records of the case with reference to various stages of the proceedings before the inquiring authority only to satisfy ourselves that the petitioner had been afforded a reasonable opportunity to put forward his case. If in the event that he wanted to place reliance upon the evidence of two witnesses Shri S.C Tandon and Shri A.K Dey, he would have put forth this contention at the forefront of his defence that he had acted on the verbal instructions of these officers and not on his own, but no such defence appears to have been taken by him. After the Bank's evidence was closed, the enquiry officer asked the petitioner to place his defence when he sought to examine the two witnesses Shri S.C Tandon and Shri A.K Dey and rather belatedly such a stand was taken by the petitioner as a pure afterthought. The claim of the petitioner is that he had permitted withdrawals to the borrowers beyond his vested powers and/or in those accounts where the sanction already stood lapsed on the verbal instructions given to him by Shri S.C Tandon and Shri A.K Dey. It is, therefore, very difficult to conceive of a position as to whether Shri S.C Tandon and Shri A.K Dey would be in a position to recall as to what transpired during the time when the petitioner was the Manager of the Bank at Burrabazar Branch and whether any conclusion could be based upon verbal instructions of the said officers. It is in those circumstances the inquiring authority rejected the permission for examination of these two witnesses as the same would not only be irrelevant but amount to adopting dilatory tactics in delaying their proceedings. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, the rejection of the request of the petitioner for adducing evidence of Shri S.C Tandon and Shri A.K Dey will not vitiate the enquiry. Further, whatever documents the petitioner sought for had been furnished to him and he had full opportunity to inspect the same.
7. So far as Regulation 6(18) of the Regulations is concerned, it provides that
“the inquiring authority may, after the completion of the production of evidence, hear the presenting officer, if any appointed, and the officer/employee, or permit them to file written briefs of their respective cases within 15 days of the date of completion of the production of evidence, if they so desire”.
(emphasis supplied)
On 22-9-1988 the petitioner while concluding his defence, stated that he did not intend to say anything further provided no written brief was filed by the presenting officer, which if done, should be brought to his notice to enable him to submit the counter-statement, if necessary. The enquiry officer then gave two days' time to the presenting officer as well as to the petitioner to file written briefs, if any. No written brief was filed by the presenting officer and hence the question of filing a written brief by the petitioner did not arise at all and thus there is no violation of Regulation 6(18). However, the records disclose that a written brief was, in fact, filed by the petitioner within the time given by the enquiry officer. Having participated fully in the enquiry and on the sitting held on 22-9-1988 having confirmed that he did not intend to say anything further, it would not be appropriate for the petitioner to contend that he had not been given any reasonable opportunity to put forth his case.
8. It is true that the petitioner was not provided with a copy of the enquiry report by the disciplinary authority before imposition of the punishment of dismissal, but that circumstance has no bearing on the dismissal of the petitioner in view of the decisions of this Court in Ramzan Khan case (1991) 1 SCC 588, (1991) 16 ATC 505 and Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727, (1993) 25 ATC 704. The said two decisions are to the effect that no order of punishment before the date of the decision in Ramzan Khan case (1991) 1 SCC 588, (1991) 16 ATC 505 would be challengeable on the ground that there is failure to furnish inquiry report before imposing the punishment by the disciplinary authority. In the present case, the punishment had been imposed upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority on 8-10-1988 long before the decision of this Court in Ramzan Khan case (1991) 1 SCC 588, (1991) 16 ATC 505 on 20-11-1990. Therefore, we hardly find any merit in the grievance made by the petitioner.
9. The Division Bench of the High Court has rightly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent resulting in dismissal of the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
10. This matter, therefore, does not call for any interference and the special leave petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Alert