STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS versus BIDYUT KUMAR MITRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2011] 1 S.C.R. 298 · Decided: 11-01-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B. SUDERSHAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 1 S.C.R. 298 
; 
A 
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
-
BIDYUT KUMAR MITRA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 296 of 2011) 
B 
JANUARY 11, 2011 
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH 
NIJJAR, JJ.] 
-1--
Service Law: 
c 
Dismissal from service - Branch Manager - Subjected 
to disciplinary inquiry - Punishment of dismissal -
Writ 
petition on the grounds of non-supply of vigilance report and 
refusal by Bank to summon the documents and the witnesses 
D mentioned in the iist - HELD: The delinquent officer neither 
raised the issue of non-supply of the documents during the 
-.4. 
entire course of the inquiry proceedings nor was it canvassed 
even before the Single Judge of the High Court - Besides, 
he failed to submit within stipulated time the list of documents 
E 
and witnesses and, therefore, could not complain Of breach 
of procedural requirement - The challenge before the Single 
Judge was restricted to denial of natural justice for non-supply 
of vigilance report - But the recommendations of the CVC 
-· 
were not taken into consideration by the authorities concerned 
F 
- The delinquent officer failed to prove any prejudice or that 
the non-supply of C. V. C. report has resulted in miscarriage 
of justice - State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service 
Rules - r.50(11) - Clause (4), Note - Administrative Law -
Natural justice. 
G 
Disciplinary inquiry - -Non-supply of documents to 
delinquent employee - HELD: Except in cases falling under 
"no notice", "no opportunity" and "no hearing" categories, the 
ccimplaint of violation of procedural provision should be 
lo-
examined from the point of view of prejudice - It was 
H 
298 
. 
' 
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. v. BIDYUT 
299 
KUMAR MITRA 
incumbent on the delinquent officer to plead and prove the 
A 
prejudice caused by the non-supply of the documents - He 
has failed to place on record any facts or material to prove 
what prejudice has been caused to him - State Bank of India 
(Supervising Staff) Service Rules. 
Respondent no.1, a Branch Manager in the appellant 
B 
Bank, was subjected to a departmental inquiry for 
* 
granting loans far in excess of the discretionary powers 
vested in him and improperly compiling the ne cessary 
opinion reports on the borrowers/guarantors and thereby c 
exposing the Bank to the risk of substantial financial loss. 
The Commissioner of Departmental Enquiries, Central 
Vigilance Commission {CVC), was appointed as the 
Enquiry Officer. The disciplinary authority, agreeing with 
the findings of the Inquiry Officer, recommended 
imposition of penalty of dismissal on the respondent. The 
D 
appointing authority imposed the punishment of 
dismissal. The appellate authority upheld the order and 
the Review Committee declined to interfere. The 
respondent then filed a writ petition and, for the first time, 
raised the ground of non-supply of the vigilance report. 
E 
It was also submitted that the refusal of the Bank to 
requisition the documents and to summon the witnesses 
-
enumerated in the list of witnesses resulted in denial of 
reasonable opportunity of hearing at the inquiry and 
serious prejudice to his defence. The Single Judge of the 
F 
. High Court dismissed the writ petition, but the Division 
Bench allowed the appeal of the delinquent officer and 
quashed the enquiry report, the order of punishment, 
and the order of the appellate authority as also the 
~ resolution passed by the Review Committee. Aggrieved, 
G 
the Bank filed the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 
H 
300 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
1.1 A perusal of the judgment of the Single Judge of 
the High Court indicates that the challenge before him was 
restricted to denial of natural justice for not supplying the 
vigilance report, but the judgment also makes it 
abundantly clear that the recommendations of the CVC 
s were not taken into consideration by the authorities 
concerned. There was also no material on the record to 
show that before taking the impugned decisions, any of 
the authorities concerned took into consideration any 
advice· or recommendations of the eve. It was also not 
c even the case of the respondent that under any rule, 
usage, customs or practice, the authorities concerned 
were bound to take into account such advice or 
recommendations of the eve. The authorities concerned 
would be within their right to ignore totally any advice or 
0 recommendations of the eve, if they so chose. [para 21-
22] (314-8-G] 
S

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