P.D. AGRAWAL versus STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 454 · Decided: 28-04-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
P.O. AGRAWAL 
v. 
STA TE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. 
APRIL 28, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
Service law 
Disciplinary proceedings: 
Delay in initiation of proceedings-Effect of-Held: Proceedings were 
not vitiated as the ground of delay was not raised by employee before either 
High Court or appellate authority, and before disciplinary authority, he not 
only took part without any demur, but cross examined witnesses and entered 
D his defence. 
Misconduct-Condonation of-Held: Terms and conditions of employees 
were governed by a statute and disciplinary authority by reason of rules 
framed, was delegated with power to initiate departmental proceedings against 
employee and impose suitable punishment if misconduct was proved-In such 
E a case concept of contract of personal service as understood in common 
parlance is not applicable and doctrine of condonation of misconduct evolved 
by ordinary law of 'master and servant' is not attracted-On facts, held that 
though the delinquent employee was suspended, non initiation of disciplinary 
proceeding due to pendency of criminal proceedings against him did not 
itself mean that there was a conscious act on part of employer to condone 
F his misconduct-State Bank of India Act, 1955. 
Principle of natural justice-Observance of-Disciplinary Authority 
while differing with findings of inquiry officer not issuing show cause notice 
to employee-Effect of-Held: Though it was a flagrant violation of principles 
G of natural justice, that itself did not cause prejudice to employee and his 
order of dismissal from service could not be rendered a nullity for that 
reason-It was not a case where there was gross violation of principles of 
natural justice in the sense that no disciplinary proceeding was initiated at 
all or no hearing was given. 
H 
454 
P.O. AGRAWAL v. STA TE BANK OF INDIA 
455 
One of several charges against employee disproved-Effect of-Held: A 
Charges against employee were of similar nature in respect of misconduct on 
number of occasions-Disproved charge was independent and severable 
since one misconduct had nothing to do with commission of similar nature 
of misconduct on all other occasions-Its disproof could not affect 
sustainability of punishment of removal from service of delinquent employee. B 
Quantum of punishment-Jurisdiction of court to interfere-Held: It is 
limited and exercised only in very exceptional case-Article 136 of 
Constitution of India, 19 50. 
Appellant was working with respondent-bank. For his misbehavior with 
a senior officer of respondent he was placed under suspension. In disciplinary C 
proceedings he was found guilty and censured, but allowed to join his duties. 
However, he started misbehaving with senior officers again as also with 
customers of respondent by using abusive language and passing derogatory 
remarks. One Branch Manager, having been abused and threatened to be hit 
by appellant, lodged First Information Reports against him. For this, he was D 
placed under suspension by Disciplinary Authority. In criminal proceedings, 
he was acquitted, getting benefit of doubt. Disciplinary Authority thereafter 
issued a charge sheet against him for his purported misbehaviour. In domestic 
inquiry conducted thereafter, appellant entered into defence, exhibited several 
documents and cross examined witnesses in relation to each of the charges. 
The Inquiry Officer found him guilty of all the charges except one. The E 
Disciplinary Authority, however, differed with those findings as regards the 
said one charge and recommended his dismissal from services. This 
recommendation was accepted by Appointing Authority. Against this, appeal 
of appellant before Appellate Authority was dismissed. High Court upheld 
dismissal of his appeal. Hence the present appeal. 
F 
Appellant contended that (i) respondent condoned his misconduct as 
disciplinary proceedings were initiated after delay of three years from alleged 
incident; (ii) prior to imposition of penalty on him, he was denied the 
opportunity to represent his case to inquiry officer as he was not given copy 
of enquiry report, and also when disciplinary authority disagreed with findings G 
of inquiry officer as regard one of the charges; (iii) that non-observance of 
principle of natural justice itself caused prejudice him. 
Respondent contended that (i) delay in initiating disciplinary action did 
not prejudice the appellant as all witnesses were available to prove ch

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