S.P. MALHOTRA versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 8 S.C.R. 413 · Decided: 04-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN, S.A. BOBDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013) 8 S.C.R. 413 
S.P. MALHOTRA 
v. 
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.5128 of 2013) 
JULY 4, 2013 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Service Law - Disciplinary enquiry - Enquiry officer 
exonerated the delinquent officer of all the charges -
Disciplinary authority partially disagreed with the findings -
C 
Imposed punishment of dismissal from service -
Departmental appeal as well as review dismissed - Writ 
petition allowed by Single Judge of High Court holding that 
the punishment was vitiated - Division Bench of High Court, 
set aside the order of Single Judge - On appeal, held: Where 
D 
the disciplinary authority disagrees with the Enquiry Officer, 
he must record reasons for his disagreement and 
communicate the same to the delinquent and should pass an 
order of punishment only after considering delinquent's 
explanation - In the present case, since such a course was 
E 
not adopted, hence the punishment stood vitiated - Appeal 
allowed. 
Punjab National Bank and Ors. vs. Kunj Behari Misra AIR 
1998 SC 2713: 1998 (1) Suppl. SCR 22; Institute of 
Chartered Accountants of India vs. L.K. Ratna AIR 1987 SC 
F 
71: 1986 (3) SCR 1048; Yoginath D. Bagde vs. State of 
Maharashtra and Anr. AIR 1999 SC 3734: 1999 (2) Suppl .. 
SCR 490; State Bank of India and Ors. vs. K.P. Narayanan 
Kutty AIR 2003 SC 1100: 2003 (1) SCR 391; J.A. Naiksatam 
vs. Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court of Bombay 
G 
and Ors. AIR 2005 SC 1218: 2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 287; P.D. 
Agrawal ts. State Bank of India and Ors. AIR 2006 SC 2064: 
2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 454; Ranjit Singh vs. Union of India 
413 
H 
414 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 
A and Ors. AIR 2006 SC 3685: 2006 (3) SCR 885; Canara 
Bank and Ors. vs. Shri Debasis Das and Ors. AIR 2003 SC 
2041: 2003 (2) SCR 968 - relied on. 
Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, etc.etc. vs. B. 
8 Karunakar etc.etc. AIR 1994 SC 1074: 1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 
576 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 576 
referred to 
Para 3H 
c 
1998 (1) Suppl. SCR 22 
relied on 
Para 4 
1986 (3) SCR 1048 
relied on 
Para 7 
1999 (2) Suppl. SCR 490 
relied on 
Para 9 
D 
2003 (1) SCR 391 
relied on 
Para 9 
2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 287 
relied on 
Para 9 
2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 454 
relied on 
Para 9 
2006 (3) SCR 885 
relied on 
Para 9 
E 
2003 (2) SCR 968 
relied on 
Para 10 
CIVIL APPELALTE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
5128 of 2013. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.09.2012 of the 
G 
H 
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in LP.A. No. 
2028 of 2011. 
P.S. Patwalia, Ashok K. Mahajan the Appellant. 
Rajesh Kumar, Anupam Dhurve, Yashraj Singh Deora, 
Mitter & Mitter Co. for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered by: 
S.P. MALHOTRA v. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & 
415 
ORS. 
ORDER 
A 
1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned 
judgment and order dated 25.9.2012 passed by the High Court 
B 
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LP.A.No. 2028 of 
2011, by way of which it has reversed the judgment and order 
of the learned Single Judge dated 20.5.2011 passed in Writ 
Petition No. 1201 of 1988, by which and whereunder the 
learned Single Judge had awarded the relief to the appellant 
herein on the ground that in case the Disciplinary Authority does 
C 
not agree with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in 
disciplinary proceedings; the Disciplinary Authority must record 
reasons for disagreement and communicate the same to the 
delinquent and seek his response and only after considering 
the same, he could pass the order of punishment. 
D 
3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are 
that: 
A. The appellant was appointed as Clerk/Cashier in the 
respondent Bank in the year 1969 and was promoted as 
Accountant in the year 1977, and further promoted as Assistant 
Manager in the year 1981. The Disciplinary Authority put him 
under suspension in November, 1982 for certain delinquencies 
and in respect of the same, a chargesheet dated 7.2.1983 was 
served upon him containing four charges namely: 
(i) 
Tampering with official record to the detriment of the 
Bank's interest; 
E 
F 
(ii) 
Indulging in un-authorized business against the 
G 
interest of the Bank; 
(iii) 
Mis-utilising official position to benefit relatives and 
friends against the interest of the Bank; and 
(iv) 
Concealment of facts from the authorities. 
H 
416 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013) 8 S.C.R. 
A 
B. The appellant submit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.