STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. versus D.C. AGGARWAL AND ANR.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 956 · Decided: 13-10-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
D.C. AGGARWAL AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 13, 1992' 
B 
{S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.) 
State Bank of lnditi (S11pel'l'isory Staff) Service RulerRu/e 50(5) and 
52. 
C 
Service Lilw: Employee-Chmge-shm-£~dalion of 
Central Vigil1111ce Comlllission-lleliance by Disciplinary Authority-But 
tklinquelll employee not S11pplied repott of Cen11111 Vigilance Commissi~ 
lmposidon of punishment-'£/fect of-Held Discip/intuy Authority cannot act 
on material neither shown 110r supplied to delinquent employee-Re/ianr.e on 
D such matelifll held violadve of procedural saf~ and contrary to fair and 
just enquiry. 
The respondent, a Bank Olllcer, was dlarp-sheetc4. The Eaqulry 
Ollker recommended that the respondent shoukl be _.-ated as Diiiy 
two charges were round to be proved against him aad they too were minor 
E and of procedural nature. However, the Enquiry Ollker rorwankd Its 
Report to the Ceutral Vigilance Commlssloo which disagreed with the 
Enquiry ont<er and found many charges proved and accordiDllY advised 
lmposldon of major penalty. 'The Disciplinary Authority agmcl on each 
cfuuile which the Central Vigilante Commission had round against the 
F respondent but disagreed on the quantum or punlshllletlt. Accordlngly, It 
passed an order against the respondent. Respondent's departmental ap-
peal qi>lnst this order was dismissed. However· oa appeal, the order was 
quashed by a Single Judge of the Pnnjab & ffarJana HIP Court oa the 
llfODlld the It was In vloladon or the principles or audi alteram paitem 
Inasmuch as the report or the Centnll Vigilance Commission relied on by 
G tile Disciplinary ·Authority was not supplied to the respondents. 'The 
Dlvlllon Bench dismissed the Bank's appeal summarily. 
In the Bank's appeal to this Court on the quesdon whether the 
Disciplinary Authority, while lmposiug punlsbllletlt, can act on material 
H' which Is neither supplied nor shown to the delinquent employee. 
956 
STATE BANK v. O.C.AGGARWAL[SAIW,J.] 
957 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD : 1. Imposition or punishment to an employee, on material 
which Is not only not supplied but not disclosed to him, has not been 
countenanced by this Court. Procedural fairness Is as much essence of 
right aild liberty as the substanti\>e law Itself. (959-G] 
2, 'lbe _order is vitiated not because or mechanical exercise of power 
A 
B 
or ror non·supply or the Inquiry report but for relying aud acting on 
material which was not only lrrelewnt but could not have been looked Into. 
Purpose of supplying document Is to contest Its veracity or give explana; 
lion. Non-supply of eve recommendation which was prepared behind the C 
back or respondent. without bis partlclpatloo,. and one does not know on 
what material which was not only sent to the Disciplinary Authority but 
was examined and relied, was. certainly violative of procedural safeguard 
and contrary to fair and Just enquiry. (960 E-F) 
3. Taking action against an employee on confidential document D 
wblch Is the fonndatlon of order exhibits complete misapprehension about 
the procedure that Is required lo be (oliowed by the Discjpllnary Authority. 
May be that the Dlsdpll•ry Authority bas recorded Its own Dodlngs and 
II may be coincidental that reasoning and basis or returning the finding or 
guilt are same u In the eve report bat It being a material obtained behind 
back or die respondent without bis knowledge or supplying of any copy to E 
him the High Court did not commit aay error In quashing the order. 
(960-H, 961 A-BJ 
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.4213 of 
1992. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.5.19'.11 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No.443 of 19'.11. 
Altaf Ahmad, Addi. Solicitor General and A. V. Rangam for the 
Appellants. 
Respondent appeared in person. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
G 
R.M. SARAI, J. Can Disciplinary Authority while imposing punish-
ment, major or minor, act on material which is neither supplied nor shown H 
958 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A to the delinquent is the only issue, of substance, which arises for considera- . 
lion in this ~ppeal, filed by the State Bank of India against the judgment 
and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. 
Even though more than ten years have elapsed since the respondent 
was charge sheeted the proceedings have not achieved finality as yet. 
B Partial responsibility for the delay was of the responden

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