PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS. versus K.K. VERMA

Citation: [2010] 11 S.C.R. 311 · Decided: 07-09-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 11 S.C.R. 311 
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS. 
v. 
K.K. VERMA 
(Civil Appeal No. 7416 of 2010) 
SEPTEMBER 7, 2010 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Service Law - Departmental Inquiry - Punjab National 
Bank Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) 
Regulations, 1977 -
Regulation 7(2) and 9 - Right of C 
employee to represent against the adverse findings in an 
inquiry report - Nationalized bank - Employee allegedly 
committed serious irregularities/lapses while discharging his 
duties - Served with charge-sheet and consequently removed 
from service - Held: Nationalized bank is an instrumentality o 
of the State, and is always expected to act in fairness and to 
follow the principles of natural justice -
The service 
regulations in question contained the requirement to furnish 
a copy of the inquiry report, and the order of the Disciplinary 
Authority recording its disagreement therewith, to the 
employee, prior to any decision on the penalty, in order to 
secure to hirn c:.1 opportuniiy to make his submissions on the 
adverse findings and to prove his innocence - By not giving 
the inquily report and the adverse order of the disciplinary 
authority, the employee was denied the opportunity to 
represent, before the finding of guilt was arrived at, and 
thereby he was certainly prejudiced - Constitution of India, 
1950 - Article 311(2) - Natural justice. 
E 
F 
The respondent, a Manager in the appellant-bank, 
allegedly committed serious irregularities I lapses while 
G 
discharging his duties. He was served with a charge-
sheet which contained in all four charges. Departmental 
inquiry was held against the respondent in terms of the 
311 
H 
312 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[201 OJ 11 S.C.R. 
A Punjab National Bank Officers Employees (Discipline and 
Appeal) Regulations, 1977. 
The Inquiry Officer submitted report stating that the 
first three charges were established but not the fourth 
8 one. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the finding of 
the Inquiry Officer in respect of the first three charges but 
reversed its finding as regards charge no.4 inasmuch as 
it found the respondent guilty in regard to a part of that 
charge as well; and consequently imposed the major 
C penalty of removal of the respondent from service. 
The respondent challenged the order of his removal 
from service by filing a writ petition. He contended that 
he was not furnished with a copy of the inquiry report 
before the issuance of the order of removal and thereby 
D he was not afforded an appropriate opportunity to defend 
himself resulting in denial of principles of natural justice 
and causing him great prejudice. The writ petition was 
allowed by the Single Judge of the High Court. The order 
was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court. 
E 
Aggrieved, the employer-bank filed the instant appeal 
contending that it was not mandatory for it to furnish the 
inquiry report since the same became necessary only 
after the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Mohd. 
Ramzan Khan* which judgment itself declared that the 
F law declared therein was to be applied prospectively and 
that the order of removal of the respondent was passed 
prior to the said judgment. 
Per contra, the respondent-employee contended that 
G all that the judgment in Mohd. Ramzan's case did was to 
remove the doubts which arose due to the changes 
brought into Article 311 (2) of the Constitution by the 42nd 
Constitutional amendrr.ent; and in any event Regulations 
H 
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS. v. K.K. 
313 
VERMA 
7(2) and 9 the 1977 regulations made it obligatory for the 
A 
appellant to furnish a copy of the inquiry report to the 
respondent. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. The right to represent against the findings 
B 
in the inquiry report to prove one's innocence is distinct 
from the right to represent against the proposed penalty. 
It is only the second right to represent against the 
proposed penalty which is taken away by the 42nd 
Constitutional Amendment. The right to represent against C 
the findings in the report is not disturbed in any way. In 
fact, any denial thereof will make the final order 
vulnerable. [Para 28] [334-B-E] 
1.2. The right of an employee to represent against the 
0 
adverse findings in an inquiry report is referrable to 
Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The import of 
this provision was explained by a Constitution Bench** 
F 
of the Supreme Court which held that it included both 

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