LexSARV U.P. GRAMIN BANK versus MANOJ KUMAR SINHA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. ~A B [2010] 2 S.C.R. 512 SARV U.P. GRAMIN BANK v. MANOJ KUMAR SINHA (Civil Appeal No. 1639 of 2010) FEBRUARY 09, 2010 [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.] Service Law - Misconduct - Punishment - Bank C employee - Found guilty of charges ol misappropriation, fraud and financial irregularities - Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of "reduction of pay" - Order upheld by appellate authority - High Court allowed the writ petition of employee on ground that he had not been served with the enquiry report D - Justification of - Held: Not justified - Order: of punishment · was not vitiated since no prejudice was shown to have been caused to respondent-employee by non-supply of the enquiry report - In any event, considering the gravity of the charges proved, the punishment imposed was lenient finough - E Administrative Law - Natural justice. Respondent, a bank employee, allegedly committed various acts of omission and commissions relating to financial irregularities, fraud and misappropriation. F Departmental enquiry was held whereafter, taking into consideration the enquiry report, the Disc.iplinary Authority imposed the punishment of "reduction of pay" after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the respondent. G Respondent challenged the order of the Disciplinary Authority, but the order was upheld by the appellate authority (i.e. the Board of Directors of the Bank). Respondent filed writ petition. The High Court held that since a copy of the enquiry report had not been served H 512 SARV U.P. GRAMIN BANK v. MANOJ KUMAR SINHA 513 on the respondent, the action of the appellant-bank was A violative of the principles of natural justice, and accordingly allowed the writ petition. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD:1.1. The plea of the respondent before the High Court that no proceedings had taken place in the enquiry B is clearly false and belied by the contents of the enquiry report. From the perusal of the enquiry report, it become apparent that the respondent has incorrectly stated that C no date was fixed by the enquiry officer and straightaway the show cause notices were issued. This apart, it is also noticed in the enquiry report that for proving the charges · levelled against the respondent in the charge sheet, the presenting officer tendered management exhibits. The D Branch Manager, appeared as a witness. It is also recorded that the respondent himself presented his defence and upon completion of the evidence the presenting officer and the respondent were granted time for giving their respective briefs. Thereafter there is a E detailed discussion of the evidence given on behalf of the Bank as well as the respondent. Respondent did not make any protest before the enquiry officer of not being permitted to cross examine the witness. Thus the enquiry proceedings have been conducted in accordance with F the principles of natural justice. In case the respondent felt genuinely aggrieved he would have raised the issue at the earliest possible stage. [Paras 25 and 26] [526-0- H; 527-A-B-E-F] 1.2. The charges which have been proved against G the respondent are all pertaining to financial irregularities, fraud and misappropriation. At the personal hearing, the respondent had clearly stated that efforts have been made l>y him for effecting recovery. He had also offered that the amounts may be adjusted from other loan H 514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 2 S.C.R. A accounts which were found to be not feasible. The issue with regard to the non-supply of the enquiry report is raised for the first time in appeal. Even at that stage the appellant does not state as to what prejudice was caused by the non-supply of the enquiry report. He also did not B seek any adjournment of the personal hearing on the ground that he be supplied the enquiry report. [Para 25] [527~B-D] 1.3. At the time when the plea was raised before the C High Court that the impugned orders are vitiated on account of the non-supply of enquiry report, it would have been appropriate for the High Court to examine the averments made in the writ petition. A perusal of the writ petition would show that the petitioner has failed to lay any foundation to establish that any prejudice has been D caused by the non-supply of the enquiry Mport. No. prejudice was actually caused to the respondent. There was no failure of justice in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.