CHHEL SINGH versus M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK PALI & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 8 S.C.R. 217 · Decided: 07-07-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 8 S.C.R. 217 
CHHEL SINGH 
v. 
M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK PALI & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.6018 of 2014) 
JULY 07, 2014 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
A 
8 
c 
Dismissal - Charge of absence from duty without prior 
permission - The delinquent took the plea that he was sick 
during the period - Also produced medical certificate to 
support his case - In inquiry found guilty and punishment of 
dismissal from service - Single Judge of High Court held the 
0 
inquiry vitiated and directed his reinstatement - Division 
Bench of High Court upheld the finding that inquiry stood 
vitiated but setting aside order of reinstatement remitted the 
matter for fresh inquiry - On appeal, held: In the facts of the 
case, the absence from duty cannot be held to be willful and 
E 
deliberate - Therefore, the delinquent was wrongly dismissed 
- There was also no occasion for the Division Bench to direct 
further inquiry without reinstating the delinquent. 
The appellant-employee of the respondent-Bank was 
charged for absence from duty, without prior permission, 
F 
for a.period of about 10 and% months. The appellant took 
the plea that during that period, he was seriously ill, which 
was beyond his control and he did not intend to 
contravene provisions of service regulations. He also 
submitted medical certificate· in support of his case. 
G 
During inquiry, the appellant submitted a list of seven 
defence witnesses, but the Inquiry Officer refused to call 
five witnesses out of the seven. Appellant was found 
guilty by the Inquiry Officer. 
217 
H 
218 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
Disciplinary authority dismissed the appellant from 
service. The order was confirmed by the appellate 
authority. 
The appellant challenged the dismissal order in writ 
8 petition. Single Judge of High Court held that the entire 
inquiry stood vitiated having been conducted in violation 
of principles of natural justice and directed reinstatement 
of the appellant. In writ appeal, Division Bench of High 
Court though upheld the finding of the Single Judge that: 
the inquiry stood vitiated, but set aside the order of 
C reinstatement and remitted the matter for fresh inquiry. 
Hence, the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
o 
HELD: 1. The order of termination being quashed by: 
the High Court, in absence of any observation and 
grounds to refuse the reinstatement, the appellant 
automatically stood reinstated. Without reinstatement in 
service, the question of further inquiry does not arise. 
E There was no occasion for the Division Bench of the 
High Court to direct further inquiry, without reinstatement 
of appellant. [Para 13] [224-B-C] 
2. There was no allegation that the appellant's 
unauthorized absence from duty was willful and 
F deliberate. The Inquiry Officer has also not held that 
appellant's absence from duty was willful and deliberate. 
It is neither case of the Disciplinary Authority nor the 
Inquiry Officer that the medical reports submitted by the 
appellant were forged or fabricated or obtained for any 
G consideration though he was not ill during the said 
period. In absence of such evidence and finding, it was 
not open to the Inquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority 
to disbelieve the medical certificates issued by the 
Doctors without any valid reason and on the ground of 
H 
CHHEL SINGH v. M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK PALI & ORS. 219 
24 days delay. Therefore, the order passed by the 
A 
Division Bench of the High Court cannot be upheld. 
[Paras 15 and 16] (226-F-H; 227-A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
6018 of 2014. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.05.2012 in 
SBCWP No. 1702/1995, DBCSA No. 850/2009 of the High 
Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur. 
B 
Aishwarya Bhati, Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, Ayushi Mittal c 
for the Appellant. 
Anil Kumar Sangal, Siddharth Sangal for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. Leave 
granted. 
D 
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order 
dated 10th May, 2012 passed by the Division Bench of the 
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur whereby the 
E 
Division Bench allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent-
-M. G. B. Gramin Bank, Pali (hereinafter referred to as the 
"Bank") and set aside the order passed by the learned Single 
Judge. 
3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows: 
The appellant was working with the respondent-Bank sinc

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