STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. versus K.P. NARAYANAN KUTTY

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 391 · Decided: 16-01-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
K.P. NARAYANAN KUTTY 
JANUARY 16, 2003 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
B 
Service law: 
State Bank of India (Supervising Sta.ff) Service Rules: 
c 
r. 50(3)(ii)-Disciplinary proceedings-Opportunity of hearing to 
delinquent officer by disciplinary authority-Inquiry Officer on completion of 
inquiry submitted report holding that some of the charges against the delinquent 
officer were partly proved-Disciplinary authority held those charges to have 
been folly proved and recommended dismissal of the officer-Consequently D 
the officer was dismissed-His contention that no opportunity was given to 
him by disciplinary authority before recording the findings with regard to 
charges found by Inquiry Officer to have been partly proved, accepted by 
High Court-Appeal by Bank-Held, principles of natural justice have to be 
read into r. 50(3)(ii) and the delinquent officer will have to be given an 
opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable E 
conclusion of the Inquiry Officer-This case is identical to Punjab National 
Bank's case*-Moreover, in this case High Court has given liberty to the 
Bank to proceed with the case in accordance with /aw-Appeal dismissed-
Administrative Law-Principles of natural justice-Opportunity of hearing. 
Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Kunj Behari Misra, [1998) 7 SCC f 
84, relied on. 
Union Bank of India v. Vishwa Mohan, [1998) 4 SCC 310, held 
inapplicable. 
Union Bank of India and Ors. v. Mohd Ramzan Khan, [1991) I SCC G 
588, refered to. 
State o/Orissa v. Bidyabhushi:m Mahapatra, [1963]Supp. l SCR 648; 
Institute a/Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K. Raina, [1986] 4 SCC 537; 
Ram Kishan v. Union of India, [1995) 6 SCC 157; State Bank of India v. S.S. H 
391 
392 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2003] I S.C.R. 
A Koshal, 11994) Supp. 2 SCC 468 and State Bank o/Rajasthan v. MC. Saxena, 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
11998) 3 sec 385, cited. 
r 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3781 ·of 
1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.3.99 of the Karnataka High 
Court in w.A. No. 2101 of 1999. 
R. Sundaravaradan, Ramlal Roy and R.N. Keshwami for the Appellants. 
L. Nageshwar Rao and K.R. Nambiar for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered. 
This appeal is directed against the order dated I 1th March, 1999 passed 
by the Division Bench of the High Court affirming the order passed by the 
learned Single Judge. The respondent herein was working as a Manager, 
Grade-I in the appellant Bank. On the allegations of certain misconduct and 
irregularities, disciplinary· proceedings were initiated against him by the 
appellants. Several charges were framed against him. The Enquiry Officer, 
after c_onducting enquiry, submitted a report holding that some of the charges 
were proved, some of the charges were partly proved and some of the charges 
were not proved. The disciplinary authot"ity, while accepting the finding of 
the Enquiry Officer to the extent that some cfiarges were proved and some 
of the charges were not proved, however; did not agree with tlie report of the 
Enquiry officer as regards the finding that the charges were partly proved. 
The disciplinary authority held that those were fully proved. In that view, on 
consideration of the material, the disciplinary authority recommended for 
dismissal of the respondent from service. Accepting the said recommendation, 
the competent authority passed an order of dismissal from service. The 
I 
respondent unsuccessfully appealed against the order of dismissal to the 
authorities. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition before the High Court 
challenging the order of dismissal from service. The learned single Judge ot' 
the High Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, allowed the writ 
petition accepting the contention that no opportunity was. given to the 
respondent by the disciplinary authority in regard to the charges with which 
the findings of the ·Enquiry officer were not agreed to by the disciplinary 
authority in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Punjab 
National Bank and Ors v. Kunj Beharl-.Misra, [ 1998] 7 SCC 84. The appellants 
took the matter in appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court. 
t 
+ 
:1. 
~-
S.B.I. v. K.P. N. KUTTY 
393 
The Division Bench of the High Court did not find any good or valid reason A 
1 
to differ from the conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge and 
. 
dismis
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.