LexCHAMOLI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. THROUGH ITS SECRETARY/ MAHAPRANDHAK & ANR. versus RAGHUNATH SINGH RANA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2016] 7 S.C.R. 86 A CHAMOLI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. THROUGH ITS SECRETARY/ MAHAPRANDHAK & ANR. B c D E F G H v. RAGHUNATH SINGH RANA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2265of2011) MAY 17,2016 [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Non-holding of inquiry - Effect of - Dismissal from service - Challenged in writ petition - Dismissal order quashed by High Court - On appeal, held: Conducting of inquiry was mandatory as per the service regulations - Thus, in view of specific statutory rules, compliance of principles of natural justice was mandatory - A penalty cannot be imposed without following the statutory provisions governing the disciplinary proceedings and principles of natural justice - Facts of the present case show that no inquiry was conducted - Therefore, dismissal order was rightly quashed by High Court - Employer is at liberty to proceed with disciplinmy inquiry de-novo - Ut1ar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 - Regn. 85 - Principles of Natural Justice. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Regulation 85 of Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 is a statutory Regulation according to which an opportunity to the employee to produce at his own cost or to cross-examine witnesses in his defence and shall also be given an opportunity of being heard in person, if he so desires. Regulation 85 (i)(b) specifically mandates the said requirements. [Para 14) (94-E-F) 2. Conducting of an inquiry was murulutory and without conducting of an inquiry and without any inquiry report having been served on the employee/respondent No.1, Disciplinary Authority could not have proceeded to impose any punishment. The compliance of principles of natural justice by the appellant- Bank is not a mere formality,· more so when the statutory provisions specifically provide that disciplinary proceedings shall 86 CHAMOLI DISTI. CO-OP. BANK LTD. THR. SECY/MAHAPRANDHAK v. RAGHUNATH SINGH RANA be conducted with due observations of the principles of natural justice. Even where there are no specific statutory rule requiring observance of natural justice, the compliance of natural justice is necessary. [Paras 18, 19] (95-C-D] Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1964) 3 SCR 616; State Bank of India v. R.K. Jain and Ors. 1972 (1) SCR 755 : (1972) 4 SCC 304; State of Uttranchal & Ors. v. Kharak Singh 2008 (12) SCR 54 : (2008) 8 SCC 236; ECIL v. B. Karunakar 1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 576 : (1993) 4 SCC 727; Radhey Shyam Gupta v. UP. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. And Another 1998 (3) Suppl. SCR 558 : (1999) 2 SCC 21; Syndicate Bank and Others v. Venkatesh Gururao Kurati 2006 (1) SCR 920 : (2006) 3 SCC 150 - relied on. 3. Imposing of any penalty on an employee of the employer- bank, that too major penalty of dismissal from service, can only be done after following the statutory provisions governing the disciplinary proceedings. [Para 17) [95-A) 4. From the pleadings and the materials on record, it is clear that no inquiry was conducted by the employer-Bank in conformity with Regulation 85 (i)(b) after issuance of charge-sheet dated 16.01.1993. The High Court has set aside the dismissal order after coming to the conclusion that without holding an inquiry the employee/respondent No.I has been dismissed. No materials have been brought in the appeal to indicate that any inquiry was conducted or inquiry report was submitted subsequent to the charge-sheet dated 16.01.1993. [Para 15) (94-F-G) 5. The High Court has rightly quashed the dismissal order by giving liberty to the Bank to hold de-novo inquiry within a period of six months, if it so desires. The Bank shall be at liberty to proceed with the Disciplinary Inquiry as per directions of the High Court. [Para 22) (101-D-E) (1964) 3 SCR 616 1972 (1) SCR 755 2008 (12) SCR 54 Case Law Reference relied on relied on relied on Para 19 Para20 Para 21 87 A 8 c D E F G H 88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 7 S.C.R. A 1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 576 relied on Para 21 B c D E F G H 1998 (3) Suppl. SCR 558 relied on Para 21 2006 (1) SCR 920 relied on Para 21 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2265 of201 l. From the Judgment and Order dated 01.12.20 I 0 in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 159 of 2002 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. Subramaniam Prasad
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.