MARWAR GRAMIN BANK AND ANR. versus RAM PAL CHOUHAN

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 408 · Decided: 27-04-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MARWAR GRAMIN BANK AND ANR. 
v. 
RAM PAL CHOUHAN 
APRIL 27, 2006 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Marwar Gramin Bank (Staff) Service Regulations, 1980; Regulation 
c 30(1)(/): 
Employee-Illegal gratification/mis-conduct-Disciplinary proceedings-
Dismissal of employee from service-Challenge t<>--Dismissed by Single Judge 
of High Court-Reversed by the Division Bench of the High Court quashing 
D the order of dismissal-On appeal, Held: Admission of charges by the 
employee---Other persons could have hardly thrown any light on these issues-
Jn the absence of witnesses to the incident, no prejudice was caused by the 
authorities by non-observance of principles of natural justice-Since finding 
as regards the charges in question was not considered by the High Court in 
the proper perspective, the matter remitted back to the High Court for 
E consideration afresh. 
F 
The respondent-employee was dismissed from service having been 
found guilty of the charge of misconduct/illegal gratification under the 
provisions of Regulations 30(1)(f) of the Marwar Gramin Bank (Staff) 
Service Regulations, 1980. 
Questioning the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the 
respondent filed a writ application which was dismissed by the Single 
Judge. On appeal, Division Bench of the High Court quashed the orders 
of Disciplinary Authority and that of the Appellate Authority. Hence the 
G present appeal. 
H 
The appellants contended that the principles of natural justice have 
no application to the facts of the present case; and that the High Court 
did not deal with all the charges separately. 
408 
MARWARGRAMINBANK v. RAMPALCHOUHAN [PASAYAT,J.] 409 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The Branch Manager had deposed as a management witness. 
He was cross-examined by the respondent-employee, but further prayer 
was made to produce him again. No reason was indicated as to why such 
A 
a prayer was being made, when he was already cross examined. As a 
matter of fact, the sustainability of charge nos. 6 and 7 depended on the B 
accepted stand of the respondent. Other persons could have hardly thrown 
any light on the issue. He appears to have accepted the allegations. That 
being so, the question of any prejudice being caused by alleged non-
observance of principles of natural justice in the absence of the witnesses 
being called does not arise. The High Court does not appear to have C 
considered this aspect and had in a routine manner applied the logic 
applicable to the other charges to charge nos. 6 and 7. The notice issued 
was restricted to the findings as regards charge nos. 6 and 7. As the High 
Court has not considered the issue in the proper perspective, the matter 
is remitted back for consideration afresh on charge Nos. 6 and 7. However, 
it is clarified that no opinion has been expressed on the merits of the case. 
(412-F-G"H; 413-A) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2324 of2006. 
From the Order dated 3.6.2004 of the High Court of Judicature Rajasthan 
D 
in D.B.C.S.A. (Writ) No. 617/2003. 
E 
Amarender Sen, Nalin Sangal, Deba P. Mohanty and Anil Kumar Sangal 
for the Appellants. 
Manu Mridul, Kailash Chandra Bhatt, Anand Kumar Vatsya and Surya 
Kant for the Respondent. 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. 
Challenge in this appeal is to the correctness of the judgment rendered 
by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur allowing the D.B. G 
Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.617 of 2003 filed by the respondent. By the 
impugned order the High Court held as follows: 
"In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the 
impugned order of termination dated 8th August, 1995 suffers from 
the procedural error leading to the manifest injustice or the vice of H 
410 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
violation of principles of natural justice. 
Consequently, special appeal is allowed. The order of the leaned 
Single Judge dated 22nd July, 2003 is set aside. The writ petition is 
allowed. The order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 3rd August, 
1995-Annexure- I and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 
B 
28.12.1995-Annexure-2 are quashed and set aside. It is directed that 
the appellant shall be reinstated in service with all consequential 
benefits." 
c 
On 27.9.2004 notice was issued by this Court limited to sustainability 
of High Court's judgment vis-a-vis charge Nos.6 and 7. 
A brief refe

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