LexH.V. NIRMALA versus KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 7 S.C.R. 1157 H.V. NIRMALA V. KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3404 of 2008) MAY 8, 2008 (S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.) Karnataka State Financial Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1965: A B Regulation 41 (3) - Appointment of Legal Advisor as C Enquiry Officer - Disciplinary proceedings against a group'A' Officer initiated by Managing Director - Board of Directors being the appointing authority, findings of Enquiry Officer placed before it - Dismissal of delinquent from service - HELD: Delinquent did not raise any objection to appointment D of Enqi1iry Officer- Where appointment of Enquiry Officer may have something to do only with carrying out the procedural aspect, strict adherence to Rules may not be insisted upon - Superior Courts may not permit such a question to be raised for the first time - Principles of Estoppel, acquiescence and E doctrine of prejudice may also be applied in such a case - Since Managing Director could not impose a major penalty, he had incidental power to place findings of Enquiry Officer before the Board - Proceedings cannot be said to have been vitiated - Estoppel - Acquiescence - Doctrine of prejudice. F Departmental proceedings were initiated by the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation against the appellant, a Group A officer, on the charges of unlawful sanction and disbursal of amounts of loan. The Enquiry Officer recorded a finding of guilt against the appellant. The G records of the disciplinary proceedings were placed before the Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation, which was the appointing authority of the appellant. Penalty of dismissal was imposed on the appellant. The 1157 H 1158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 7 S.C.R. A delinquent remained unsuccessful in statutory remedy as also in writ proceedings before the High Court. In the instant appeal filed by the delinquent it was contended for her that in view of the provisions of Regulation 41 of the Karnataka State Financial 8 Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1965, a Legal Advisor could not have been appointed as the Enquiry Officer; and that in absence of provisions in the Regulations like Rule 13 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the Managing Director of the C Corporation could not have transferred the proceedings to the Board of Directors of the Corporation. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Appellant did not raise any objection in D regard to the appointment of the Enquiry Officer. He participated in the enquiry proceedings without any demur whatsoever. A large number of witnesses were examined before the Enquiry Officer. They were cross- examined. Appellant examined witnesses on her own E behalf. The Single Judge as also the Division Bench of the High Court have opined that the appellant has failed to establish that any prejudice has been caused to her by reason of appointment of a Legal Advisor as the Enquiry Officer and as the appellant has participated in the enquiry F proceedings, she could not be permitted to raise the said contention. Appointment of an incompetent enquiry officer may not vitiate the entire proceedings. Such a right can be waived. In relation thereto even the principle of Estoppel and Acquiescence would apply. [para 8-9] [1164- G E-H; 1165-A] Union of India vs. S. Vinodh Kumar (2007) 8 SCC 100 - relied on.· State Bank of India vs. Ram Das (2003) 12 SCC 474; H and Central Bank oflndia vs. C. Bernard (1991) 1 SCC 319 H.V. NIRMALA v. KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ORS. - distinguished. 1159 A 1.2 Jurisdictional issue should be raised at the earliest possible opportunity. A disciplinary proceeding is not a judicial proceeding. There exists a distinction between a domestic tribunal and a· court. It is not the case of the appellant that any procedure in holding the enquiry 8 has been violated or that there was no compliance of principles of natural justice. [para 11] [1166-G,G] Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority (1979) 3 SCC 489 - referred to. c Vitarel/i vs. Seaton (1959) 359 US 535 - referred to. 1.3 In terms of Regulation 41(3) of the Karnataka State Financial Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1965, as was stated to have been prevalent at the relevant point of time, 0 an outsider could have been appointed as the Enquiry Officer. [para 15] [1170-A] 1.4 In a case of this nat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.