LexBRIJ BIHARI SINGH versus BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
:2015111 s.c.R. 51 BRIJ BIHARI SINGH v. BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS Civil Appeal No.1217 of 2011 NOVEMBER20, 2015 [M. Y. EQBAL AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] A B Service Law - Disciplinary proceedings - Enquiry conducted on the basis of files without giving opportunity to c delfnquent to place his defence - Disciplinary Authority instead of passing final order, recommended the case to. Appellate Authority for imposing punishment - Disciplinary Authority also participated in the meeting when the decision was taken by the Appellate Authority dismissing the D delinquent from service - Held: The disciplinary proceedings is violative of principles of natural justice and Regulation 39 · of State Financial Corporation (Staff) Regul@tions, in as much opportunity was not granted to the delinquent to put his defence - Thus, the enquiry is vitiated in law - E Recommendation of the case by Disciplinary Authority to Appellate Authority for imposition of punishment is violative of Regulation 40 inasmuch as it takes away delinquent's right to appeal and is also arbitrary and discriminatory - The procedure of disciplinary proceedings adopted by the F Disciplinary as well as Appellate Authorities is erroneous and suffers from serious discrimination and bias ~ Bihar State Financial Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1965 - Natural Justice. G Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. A person, required to answer a charge imposed, should know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported. The H 51 52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 11 S.C.R. A delinquent must be given fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to cross-examine the witnesses who prove the charge. The delinquent must also be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against him. A departure from this requirement violates B the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. If the enquiry report is based on merely ipse dixit and also conjecture and surmises, it cannot be sustained in law. In the instant case, the C disciplinary proceeding was conducted in gross violation of Regulation 39 of Bihar State Financial Corporation (Staff) Regulations, inasmuch as no reasonable opportunity was given to the delinquent to 0 place his case in defence. The Regulation imposed a duty on the Authority to give a personal hearing to the delinquent. [Paras 8 and 10] [60-B-D; 61-E-F] E State of U.P. vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha 2010 (2) SCR 326: (2010) 2 SCC 772 - relied on. 2. A right of appeal has been provided by Regulation 40 of the Regulations against any order passed by the competent Authority. In the instant case, the Disciplinary Authority, instead of exercising the power F as Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment, referred his recommendations to the appellate authorit/, namely, Board of Directors for taking a decision and the Board of Directors exercised the power of Disciplinary Authority and imposed punishment of dismissal thereby G deprived the appellant from moving the appellate authority against the said order. Such exercise of power is wholly arbitrary and discriminatory. [Para 11] [61-G- H; 62-A] H 3. Further, the Managing Director being the disciplinary authority prepared his report and referred BRIJ BIHARI SINGH v. BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL 53 CORPORATION the matter to the Board of Directors to consider the draft A charges, enquiry report, representation filed by the officer concerned and his finding, for taking an appropriate decision in the case. Not only that, when the case was placed before the Board for taking a final decision, he participated in the said meeting and a B decision was taken by the Board of Directors to dismiss the appellant from service. Such a procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority is absolutely erroneous in law. [Para 12] [62-B-D] Surjit Ghosh vs. United Commercial Bank AIR 1995 SC 1053; AmarNath Chowdhury vs. Braithwaite and Company Ltd. and Ors. 2002 (1) SCR 184~(2002) 2 SCC 290; Institute of c Chartered Accountants of India vs. L. K. Ratna and D Ors.1986 (3) SCR 1048: (1986) 4 sec 537; K. Chelliah vs. Chairman Industrial Finance Corporation oflndia andAnr. AIR 1973 Mad.122 -relied on. E 4. Thus, the procedure adopted by the respondents in removing the appellant from service is erron
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.