BILASPUR RAIPUR KSHETRIYAGRAMIN BANKANDANR versus MADANLAL TANDON

Citation: [2015] 7 S.C.R. 86 · Decided: 15-05-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 7 S.C.R. 86 
A BILASPUR RAIPUR KSHETRIYAGRAMIN BANKANDANR 
B 
v. 
MADANLAL TANDON 
(Civil Appeal No. 4467 of 2015) 
MAY 15, 2015 
[M. Y .. EQBAL AND S. A. BOB DE, JJ.) 
Service Law: Misconduct -
Charge-sheet -
c Punishment - Removal from service - Plea of respondent-
employee in writ petition that along with charge-sheet, neither 
the list of documents nor the documents sought to iJe relied 
upon were supplied - High Court quashed order of removal 
- Held: The records clearly showed that the documents which 
D were the basis of charges leveled against the respondent 
were not supplied to the respondent- High Court was right in 
holding that order of removal was not sustainable. 
E 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Indisputably, no documents were 
supplied to the respondent along with the charge-sheet 
~n the basis of which charges were framed. Some of 
the documents were given during departmental inquiry, 
F but relevant documents on the basis of which findings 
were recorded were not made available to the 
respondent. The list of documents and witnesses were 
also not supplied and some of the documents were 
produced during the course of inquiry. Admittedly, show 
G cause notice was served along with 17 charges, but all 
the documents were not supplied to the respondent. The 
appellant was not able to demonstrate that the above 
documents were supplied to the respondent even during 
the course of inquiry. The High Court rightly came to the 
H conclusion that the order of punishment cannot be 
86 
BILASPUR RAIPUR KSHETRIYA GRAM IN BANK AND 
87 
ANR. v .. MADANLAL TANDON 
sustained in law. However, taking into consideration the A 
fact that the respondent was out of employment since 
1991, a lump sum payment of Rs.5,00,000/- towards the 
salary would meet the ends of justice. [Paras 9, 10) (90-
D-H; 91-A-B] 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
4467of2015. 
B 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.02.2012 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur in Writ. c 
Appeal No. 147of2010. 
Akshat Shrivasatava, Sarbajit Datta (For Manjeet 
Kirpal) for the Appellants. 
T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas (For Nikhil Nayyar) for D 
the Respondent. 
· 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
M. Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Leave granted. 
E 
2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the 
judgment and order dated 17th February, 2012, whereby 
Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in· the writ 
appeal preferred by the appellants upheld the order of the F 
learned Single Judge and directed payment towards 
respondent's claim of salary up to Rs.5,00,000/- with all 
consequential benefits. 
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent 
was working as a Field Supervisor in the appellant Bank since G 
1981. In February, 1984, a charge-sheet was issued to him 
for having committed misconduct and after a departmental 
inquiry, an order dated 5. 7 .1984 was passed by the Disciplinary 
Authority imposing punishment of stoppage of his two annual H 
88 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A increments. Thereafter a second charge-sheet was issued to 
the respondent in November, 1987 alleging that the respondent 
had committed several financial irregularities in various loan 
cases.An inquiry was conducted, wherein fourteen charges 
were found proved against the respondent and three charges 
B were not found proved. Consequently, the punishment of 
removal from service was inflicted against the respondent on 
1.10.1991. Respondent preferred an appeal before the Board 
of Directors of the appellant Bank, but the same was 
dismissed. 
c 
4. The respondent, therefore, moved the High Court by 
way of writ petition, inter alia contending that both the charge-
sheets being identical, the second inquiry was not competent. 
It was also contended that along with the second charge-sheet, 
D neither the list of documents nor the documents sought to be 
relied upon were supplied. It was also contended by the 
respondent-writ petitioner that appropriate opportunity was not 
afforded to him to have inspection of the relevant documents 
and as such the respondent was not in a position to reply the 
E said show cause notice effectively and to defend him in the 
inquiry. Learned Single Judge of the High Court rejected his 
first contention and held that the charges were not identical 
and, therefore, the second inquiry was competent. However, 
F it was held that along with the charge-sheet and imput

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.