A
S.K. SINGH
v.
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.
OCTOBER 19, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)
Service Law :
Removal from service-Branch Manager of a Bank-Disciplinary
C proceedings as cash found sh01t-Enquiry conducted-Order of removal from
service-Clzallenged on the ground that copy of enquily report was not sup-
plie~egatived by High Cowt-On appeal held, though copy of the enquby
report not supplied, the employee could not satisfy the Court as to the
prejudice caused to him on account of its non-supply-Hence there is no
illegality in the decision taken by the High Court.
D
E
F
Managing Director, ECJL Hyderabad and Ors. v. B. Kanmakar and
Ors., [1993] 4 SCC 727, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 18181 of 1996.
F~om the Judgment and Order dated 13.3.96 of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court in L.P.A. No. 80 of 1996.
S.S. Khanduja, Yash Pal Dhingra and Baldev L. Satija for the
Petitioner
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
This petition is filed against the judgment of the Division Bench of
the Madhya Pradesh High Court Gwalior Bench made on March 13, 1996
G in L.P.A. No. 80/96.
The admitted position is that the petitioner was working as a Branch
Manager in the respondent-Bank. A sum of Rs. 20,000 was found to be
short in cash of the Branch. Therefore, disciplinary proceedings were
initiated against him and an enquiry was conducted and he was removed
H from service. He challenged the order of his removal in an appeal which
542
S.K SINGH v. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
543
was dismis~ed; the writ petition filed by him was also dismissed by the A
learned single Judge of the High Court and on appeal, it was confirmed.
The only controversy raised in the High Court was that as he was not
supplied with the copy of the"-i.9.t.l,u_iiy report, the order of dismissal was
bad in law. The learned Single Jud,ge as well as the Division Bench of the
High Court have considered the e.ff~ct of the judgment of the Constitution
Bench of this Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. v. B.
Kamnakar and Ors., [1993] 4 SCC 727. The learned single Judge as well as
the Division Bench of the High Court had asked the petitioner as to what
prejudice the petitioner had suffered for non-supply thereof. Since there
was no adequate explanation offered by the petitioner, the High Court
came to the conclusion, that though the copy of the report was not
supplied, on the facts, as no prejudice was proved, it was not a case
warranting interference.
It is contended by Sri Khanduja, learned counsel for the petitioner
B
c
that since this Court has laid down the law that supply of copy of the D
enquiry report is a pre-condition for a competent officer to take discipli-
nary action, the appropriate course would have been to send back the case
to the disciplinary authority. For this course, normally there is no quarrel,
as this Court had settled the law that a copy of the report needs to be
supplied to the delinquent employee to enable him to make representation E
against the proposed action or punishment and, thereafter, the authority is
required to consider that explanation offered by the petitioner and _then to
take decision on the quantum of punishment. In this case, though copy of
the report was not supplied, he was asked by the learned Single Judge as
well as by the Division bench as to what prejudice he suffered on account
of non-supply of the report; but he was not able to satisfy the learned
Judges as to the prejudice caused to him on account of non-supply of the
enquiry report. On the facts, we find that there is no illegality in the
decision taken by the High Court.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
G.N.
Petition dismissed.
F
G
Lex