LexK. L. TRIPATHI versus STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 184 k. L TRiPATHi v. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS October 4, 1983 ' (Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C. J., R. S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.] State Bank of India (Officers and Assistants) Service Rules-Rule 49(/) read with rule 50-Scope of- Whether require due compliance with princip/e1 of natural justice-Rufe whether statutorY-No' opinion expressed. Statutory Bank employee-Associated with the inquiry-Materials gathered aJ his back shown-Did not ask for cross~examination-Asked for personal hearing-Personal hearing given-E1nployee disniissed-Whe/her rules of natural justice violated. On the basis of a complaint mad~ against the appellant, a Branch Manager of the first respondent Bank, the Head .Office of the Bank ordered a preliminary inquiry and after considering the report of the preliminary inquiry directed one of its officers to carry out investigation under the rules governing the service of the officers of the Bank. The Investigating Officer conducted the investigation and also framed charges against the appellant. The' lnvestigating Officer held that the appellant had committe~ certain irregularities wilfully, violated the established practices and defied the Bank's instructions. On the basis of the report of the Investigating Officer the appellant was served with a charge.:sheet. The charge against thr. appellant was that he had acted in violation of procedure of the Bank, he had disregarded all safeguards in sane~ tioning the overdrafts, enCashing bills and his conduct had exposed the bank to grave risks and that. he had flagrantly violated the bank rules and instruc· tions with a view to cover up attempts to misappropriate bank's money after defrauding tha- bank. In his reply to the charge.sheet the appellant did not ask for any opportunity to lead evidence in support of his defence and for cross·examination of any of the officers in respect of the matters stated against him. The appellant merely <1.sked for a personal h~aring whi'ch was granted to him. The Local Board of the Bank, after considering all the relevant docu- ments submitted to it, resolved that the 3ppellant be dismissed, Thereafter. the appellant was served notice to shoW cause why he should not be dismissed from service in terms of rule 49(f) of the State Bank of India (Officers and Assistants) Service Rules. In his reply the appellant stated inter alia that the inquiry was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Executive Committee of the Central Board of the Bank after going through all the necessary papers submitted to it, directed that the appellant be dismissed from ·service. On being dismissed, the appellant challeng~d his dismissal in the Hi(Jh Court ~lleging contravention of the rules. The High Court dismissed the ~I ' • lt.t. Tllli'ATJiJ 11. STAtE BANK 185 writ application on the ground that the rules had no statutory effect. Hence this appeal by special leave. -The appellant contended that the impugned order should be struck down as having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. He submitted that rule 50 of the Rules implied reasonable opportunity which required that materials agaiqst a person should not be gathered behind· his back and he should be given an opportunity to cross~ examine, if necessary, the Persons who had supplied the materials or given evidence against him and since· in his case the materiats agaillst him were gathered in his absence and be was not allowed to .cross~examine the witnesses, and that evidence against him was not recorded in his presence, the require- ments of rule 50 had not been fulfilled. The appellant also submitted that no loss or damage had been caus~d to the Bank. and that the final order did not contain the reasons. Dismissing the appeal, HELD: Referring to rule 49(f) and sub-rules (I), (2) and (3) ;of rule 50 of the State Bank of lndia ( Jfficers and Assistants) Service Rules, in tht instant case the relevant rules have been complied with. Even if the rules are read as requiring due compliance with the principles of natural justice or even if such basic principles of natural justice were taken as implied in any case there has been no violation of the principles of natural justice in respect of the· impugned order. [200 G·H] All actions against a party which involve penal or adverse consequences must be in accordance with the principles of natural justice but whethe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.