CANARA BANK AND ORS. versus SHRI DEBASIS DAS AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 968 · Decided: 12-03-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CANARA BANK AND ORS. 
V. 
SHRI DEBASIS DAS AND ORS. 
MARCH 12, 2003 
B 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Service law: 
Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976-
C Regulation 6(18)-Charge sheet against employee-Report by Inquiry Officer 
without giving him opportunity of filing written brief under the Regulation--
Employee given personal hearing at appellate stage-Dismissal from service-
Writ Petition-High Court held order of dismissal violative of principles of 
Natural Justice and violative of the Regulation which is mandatory provision--
D Case not decided on merit-Order of Single Judge upheld by Division Bench-
On appeal, held: Principles of Natural Justice not violated as no prejudice is 
proved by the employee-Regulation does not require opportunity being granted 
to the employee to file written brief-In the facts of the case post-decisional 
hearing obliterated the procedural deficiency of a pre-decisional hearing-
Remitted back to High ·Court to decide the case on merit-Administrative 
E law-Principles of Natural Justice. 
Administrative law: 
"Natural Justice" and "legal Justice "-Co-relation between-Discussed 
F 
Maxims: 
G 
H 
"Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa sua"; "Aliquis non debet 
judex in propria causa quia non palest esse judex at pars"; "nemo pot est esse 
simul actor at judex "and qui aliquid statuerit parte inandita al/eram act quam 
licet dixerit, hand acquum facer it "-Meaning of 
Words and Phrases: 
Natural justice_' and 'Civil consequences '-Meaning of 
Respondent-employee was issued four charge-sheets. After enquiry 
968 
-' 
CANARA BANK 1•. DEBASIS DAS 
969 
in respect of one of the charges, disciplinary authority directed dismissal A 
of the employee. The order of dismissal was set aside by High Court and 
the employee was reinstated. After his reinstatement office orders were 
issued to proceed with the inquiries regarding the remaining three charges. 
Employee first requested to exonerate him from the charges, but later on 
the basis of a letter from the bank dated 13.9.1989, took the stand that he B 
had already been exonerated of the three charges. Photocopy of the above 
letter which was written by Acting General Manager, was sent. Alleging 
the letter to be fabricated document further charge-sheet was 'issued to 
the employee. The employee wrote to the Acting Deputy General Manager 
that the letter was signed by Deputy General Manager and not Acting 
General Manager. During enquiry, employee wanted to make further C 
submissions in his written briefs in terms of Regulation 6(18). Inquiry 
Officer directed the Presenting Officer to submit his written briefs and to 
send the same to the employee. Employee was directed to submit his 
written brief within I 0 days from the receipt of the written briefs from 
the Presenting Officer. On not getting written briefs from the employee, 
Inquiry Officer sent.his report to the disciplinary authority who sent the D 
report of the Inquiry Officer to the employee and asked for his submission 
on the Report. Employee refused to make his submissions in the absence 
of written brief of the Presenting Officer. Subsequently on getting the 
written brief of the Presenting Officer the employee refused to file 
submissions to the finding of the Inquiry Officer and took the stand that E 
his written brief should be first considered by the Inquiry Officer 
whereafter he should give a finding. Disciplinary authority on not getting 
the submission of the employee on the Inquiry Report, held the employee 
guilty and dismissed hiin from service. After one round of unsuccessful 
litigation initiated before High Court by the employee against the dismissal 
order passed by the disciplinary authority, he filed departmental appeal. F 
Appellate authority, after giving a personal hearing to the appellant, 
upheld the order of dismissal. Appellant filed writ petition which was 
allowed by Single Judge of High Court holding that not affording 
opportunity to the appellant by the Inquiry Officer was violative of 
principles of natural justice. It was also directed that the disputed G 
document be sent to Government Handwriting and Questioned Documents 
Expert. Bank's appeal to Division Bench of High Court was dismissed 
holding that the provisions of Regulation 6(18) are mandatory and the 
same was not complied with as opportunity was not given to the employee 
to file his written briefs; and that unfair trial cannot be cured by a fa

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