STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR versus SRINATH GUPTA AND ANR .

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 779 · Decided: 25-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

. ··)' 
·-
STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR 
v. 
SRINATH GUPTA AND ANR . 
• 
OCTOBER 25, 1996 
[J.S. VERMA AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] 
Service Law : Disciplinary proceedings-Statement under Section 161 
Cr. P. C. taking of on record in Departmental Enquiry-Read over and ad-
mitted by witness-Copy of statement given to the employee-Cross examina-
A 
B 
tion of the witness-Opportunity given-Whether enquiry vitiated-Held-No C 
illegality committed--Enquiry Proceedings not vitiated. 
An FIR was lodged with the CBI against respondent no.1 alleging 
that he had demanded and accepted illegal gratification. Respondent no.1 
was dismissed from service after a departmental enquiry. Appeal before 
the appropriate authority was dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the dis· D 
missal order. On appeal before the High Court the Single Judge allowed 
the writ petition directing the appellant Bank to reinstate respondent no.1. 
The appeal preferred by the appellant before the Division Bench of High 
Court was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has 
preferred the the present appeal. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. may not be 
admissible in the criminal trial but can be produced in a disciplinary 
inquiry. The person who made the statement has been examined before the F 
Inquiry Officer. The statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was 
read over to the witness who admitted the contents thereof and the state· 
ment became part of the examination-in-chief of the witnesses before the 
Enquiry Officer. The copy of the statement had been given to the respon· 
dent in advance and full opportunity was granted to the respondent to G 
cross examine the witnesses. No illegality had been committed by taking 
on record the statements which had been made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 
and the conclusion of the High Court that the disciplinary proceedings 
stood vitiated is not correct. [784-E-G] 
2. On the question regarding presence of CBI Inspector during the H 
779 
780 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A disciplinary proceedings, when the objection of his presence was raised he 
was removed from there. This being so one of the reasons given by the single 
...... 
judge for setting aside the award was based on wrong premise. [787-E] 
3. The Judgement of the single Judge and the Division Bench are 
B 
set-aside. Payments made to respondent no.1 during the pendency of 
appeal by reason of interim order are not required to be refunded. [787-G] 
State of Mysore v. S.S. Makapur, [1963] 2 SCR 943, relied on. 
State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh, (1982) 1 LLJ 46; Khatri and ors. v. 
c 
State of Bihar& ors., [1981] 3SCR145 and MIS Kosoram Cotton Mills Ltd. 
v. Gangadhar and Ors, [1964] 2 SCR 809, referred t..1. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3847 of 
1993. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.10.92 of the Rajasthan High 
D Court in D.B.SA: No. 563 of 1992. 
.. 
G.L. Sanghi and A.V. Rangam for the Appellant. 
' 
V.M. Tarkuncle and Sushi! Kr. Jain for the Respondents. 
E 
The Judgement of the Court the was delivered by 
KIRPAL, J. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of 
the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court which dismissed the 
appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the Single Judge who 
. had allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.l quashing the order 
F 
of the Central Go~ernment Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 
'the Tribunal') which had upheld the dismissal of the said respondent No.l 
pursuant to the proceedings which had been held. 
Respondent No.l was initially appointed as cashier-cum-godown 
keeper by the appellant bank in the year 1961. He was promoted as 
G Head-Cashier on 25.3.1970 and was posted at Sunel Branch of the Bank. 
In June, 1973, he was transferred to Sangod Branch. 
-· 
On 31.3.1975, the appellant lodged with the Central Bureau of Inves-
tigation (hereinafter referred to as 'C.B.1.'), an F.l.R. in which it was, inter 
alia, alleged that while working as the cashier at the Sunel Branch during 
H the year 1970-1971, ~he said respondent had demanded and accepted illegal 
SfA1EBANKOFBIKANERANDJAIPURv. SRINATIIGUPTA[KIRPAL,J.j 781 
gratification from a number of persons in consideration of his showing A 
favours to them in getting their loans sanctioned. The C.B.I. submitted its 
final report on 21.2.1977 stating that no reliable evidence was available in 
support of the allega

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