LexK. PRABHAKAR HEGDE versus BANK OF BARODA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1997 : 2025 INSC 997 K. Prabhakar Hegde v. Bank of Baroda (Civil Appeal No. 6599 of 2025) 19 August 2025 [Dipankar Datta* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.] Issue for Consideration (i) Whether denial of the report of preliminary inquiry prepared by the officer entrusted by Vijaya Bank (which merged with the respondent in the year 2019) to conduct such inquiry, who happened to be the sole management witness, was sufficient to vitiate the regular inquiry that followed against the appellant; (ii) whether the failure/omission of the Inquiry Officer to generally question the appellant on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence, as per Regulation 6(17) of the Vijaya Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981, vitiated the inquiry; (iii) whether continuation of disciplinary proceedings against the appellant beyond superannuation was a permissible course of action under the 1981 Regulations. Headnotes† Vijaya Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981 – Appellant dismissed from service – Whether denial of the report of preliminary inquiry prepared by the officer entrusted by Vijaya Bank to conduct such inquiry, who happened to be the sole management witness, was sufficient to vitiate the regular inquiry that followed against the appellant: Held: In the instant case, a perusal of the inquiry report reveals that no reliance upon the preliminary inquiry report has been placed by the inquiry officer – Therefore, non-furnishing of the inquiry report to the appellant is inconsequential – However, an argument that has been made is that the non-furnishing of the preliminary inquiry report has caused prejudice to the appellant because such non- furnishing of the report disabled him to effectively cross-examine the witness – Argument cannot be accepted – Since the appellant * Author 1998 [2025] 8 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports was duly provided with the deposition of the witness as per the rules, was allowed to cross-examine the witness on the basis of the statements made by him and the inquiry officer placed no reliance upon the preliminary inquiry report, but only upon the statements of such witness recorded during chief examination and cross-examination – Therefore, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice – Also, no prejudice has been caused to the charged officer for non-furnishing of the preliminary inquiry report. [Paras 27-29] Vijaya Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981 Regn. 6(17) – Appellant dismissed from service – Whether the failure/omission of the Inquiry Officer to generally question the appellant on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence, as per Regulation 6(17) of the 1981 Regulations, vitiated the inquiry; whether continuation of disciplinary proceedings against the appellant beyond superannuation was a permissible course of action under the 1981 Regulations: Held: The Inquiry Officer by not generally questioning the appellant on the circumstances available in the evidence, which were unfavourable or adverse to such officer, failed to perform a mandatory duty – In the present case, the appellant did not raise any objection in this behalf before the disciplinary authority but raised the point, generally, of non-adherence to Regulation 6 before the appellate authority – Be that as it may, the appellant is justified in voicing a grievance that he had not been extended fair, reasonable and adequate opportunity to defend himself in terms of Regulation 6 which, in turn, infringed his right protected by Article 14 of the Constitution – In normal circumstances, the obvious direction that could follow the foregoing discussions is a remand to the disciplinary authority to re-start the inquiry from the stage the same stood vitiated, i.e., requiring the Inquiry Officer to scrupulously follow Regulation 6(17) of the 1981 Regulations – However, there are circumstances that impede an order for remand – The foremost being the lack of accessibility to the records because of the merger of Vijaya Bank with the respondent and the distance of time since the disciplinary proceedings came to a close – It is also to be noted that the disciplinary proceedings were continued beyond the date on which the appellant attained the age of superannuation – Because of the ultimate order this [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1999 K. Prabhakar Hegde v. Bank of Baroda
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.