S.B.I versus HEMANT KUMAR

Citation: [2011] 4 S.C.R. 280 · Decided: 06-04-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2011) 4 S.C.R. 280 
S.B.I. 
v. 
HEMANT KUMAR 
(Civil Appeal No. 2957 of 2011) 
APRIL 6, 2011 
[AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
Service law: Disciplinary proceedings - Misappropriation 
of funds - Enquiry - Delinquent employee remaining absent 
C during the enquiry - Number of adjournments - No intimation 
from employee about absence - Enquiry officer recording 
evidence on behalf of management and finding the employee 
guilty - Disciplinary officer passing order of dismissal - In 
appeal thereagainst, employee admitting guilt - Dismissal of 
o appeal -
Industrial dispute -
Tribunal holding that the 
domestic enquiry held against the employee suffered from 
violation of principles of natural justice and enquiry officer 
ought to have made enquiry from the management about the 
alleged letter sent by employee for seeking adjournment and 
E given another opportunity to him to lead evidence in rebuttal 
- Writ petition filed by management dismissed by High Court 
- On appeal, held: Both the reasons assigned by the Tribunal 
for condemning the departmental enquiry as defective were 
completely untenable - Principles of natural justice cannot 
F be stretched to a point where they would render the in-house 
proceedings unworkable - Admittedly, the employee had not 
appeared for the enquiry on two earlier dates - On the third 
date too he was absent and there was no intimation from him 
before the Enquiry Officer - Employee had already tendered 
G two admissions of guilt and there was hardly anything that 
could be said on his behalf to repel the charges - Tribunal's 
findings were wholly unreasonable and perverse - High Court, 
unfortunately, did not consider the matter in the right 
perspective -
The order passed by the High Court and the 
award made by the Tribunal set aside - Natural justice. 
H 
280 
S.B.I. v. HEMANT KUMAR 
281 
The respondent was working in the appellant-bank A 
as cashier-cum-clerk. The appellant-bank discovered that 
the respondent had indulged in misappropriation of 
funds by making fictitious entries and manipulations in 
the bank's ledgers. He was given a charge-sheet. On the 
first day of enquiry, the respondent did not appear 
B 
without any intimation to the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry 
was adjourned. On the adjourned date, the respondent 
sent the request for adjournment again on the ground of 
illness of his mother-in-law. The enquiry was once again 
adjourned and the respondent was intimated about the c 
next date fixed in the enquiry through registered post as 
well as hand delivered letters. The respondent was once 
again absent and there was no intimation from him. PW.1 
was the Branch Manager where the respondent was 
posted at the material time and where the 0 
misappropriation was committed by him. He had come in 
connection with the enquiry from Delhi to Dehradun for 
the third time, and the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the 
enquiry and examined him. After recording the evidence 
of PW-1, the Enquiry Officer closed the enquiry and 
submitted his report holding the respondent guilty of all 
the charges. A copy of the enquiry report was sent to the 
respondent along with a letter informing him that it was 
tentatively decided to dismiss him from service and 
asking him to show cause. The respondent gave his reply 
to the enquiry report and after hearing him in person, the 
disciplinary authority passed the order of his dismissal 
from service. 
E 
F 
Against the order passed by the disciplinary 
authority, the respondent preferred an appeal and during 
G 
the pendency of the appeal he submitted yet another 
letter admitting his guilt in writing. His appeal was 
dismissed and then the respondent raised an industrial 
dispute. The Industrial Tribunal held that the domestic 
H 
282 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 
A enquiry held against the respondent suffered from 
violation of the principles of natural justice. While holding 
so, the Tribunal assigned two reasons. Firstly, the 
respondent had sent an application through post for 
adjournment of the enquiry on the ground that he had 
B sustained injuries and even though this application did 
not reach the Enquiry Officer, it was his duty to find out 
from the bank whether or not such a letter was received 
and secondly, even after examining PW.1 ex parte, the 
Enquiry Officer ought to have given another opportunity 
c to the respondent to lead evidence in rebuttal. The 
Tribunal, accordingly, set aside the order of dism

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