STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. versus ATINDRA NATH BHATTACHARYYA & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 9 S.C.R. 769 · Decided: 25-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
769
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
ATINDRA NATH BHATTACHARYYA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 5842 of 2019)
JULY 25, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Doctrines/Principles: Principle of natural justice –
Reasonable opportunity of hearing – On facts, writ petition by
employee challenging his removal from service – High Court set
aside the order of punishment as well as penalty order, directing
employer to serve notice before imposing penalty – Thereafter,
employer-bank served repeated notice for personal hearing to
employee, however, employee did not appear – In appeal by the
employee, the Division Bench however, again directed the employer-
Bank to grant another opportunity of hearing to the employee – On
appeal held: Once opportunity has been granted to the employee,
he is not entitled to another opportunity on the ground of compassion
– Time and again opportunity of hearing cannot be granted on the
pretext of justice – Delaying tactics cannot be rewarded in such a
manner – Once the employee has failed to avail of opportunity of
hearing granted, the Bank cannot be directed to give another
opportunity – Thus, the directions issued by the Division Bench to
grant another opportunity not sustainable and is set aside – In view
of grave and serious allegations of financial irregularities against
the employee, the order of removal cannot be said to be unjust.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The respondent avoided availing the
opportunity when offered thrice. Once opportunity has been
granted to the respondent, he is not entitled to another
opportunity on the ground of compassion. The only reasoning
given by the Division Bench is ‘justice demands’ that the
respondent be given one last opportunity to place his version.
The respondent lost his chance to put his version before the
Competent Authority when called upon by the Authority to do
   [2019] 9 S.C.R. 769
769
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
770
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
so. Time and again opportunity of hearing cannot be granted on
the pretext of justice. The delaying tactics cannot be rewarded in
such a manner. Once the respondent has failed to avail of
opportunity of hearing granted, the Bank cannot be directed to
give another opportunity for the sake of justice. Therefore, the
directions issued by the Division Bench to grant another
opportunity are not sustainable and the same are set aside.
[Para 10] [774-D-F]
1.2 The allegations of financial irregularities against the
respondent run into crores of rupees under multiple heads. The
inquiry officer found ten charges proved whereas six charges have
not been proved. Because of grave and serious allegations of
financial irregularities, the order of removal cannot be said to be
unjust. [Para 11] [774-F-G]
1.3 Even though, the judgment of the Single Bench finding
fault with the order of removal as affirmed in the appeal, cannot
be said to be justified in view of the judgment of this Court in the
case of *Mohammad Badruddin but since the Bank has not filed
an appeal against such judgment, therefore, the correctness of
the said judgment is not being examined in the appeal which is
directed against judgment of Division Bench of High Court.
[Para 12] [774-G-H; 775-A]
Bank of India v. Apurba Kumar Saha (1994) 2 SCC
615 ; *State Bank of India & Ors. v. Mohammad
Badruddin 2019 (7) JT 288 ; State Bank of India &
Ors. v. Ranjit Kumar Chakraborty & Anr. (2018) 12
SCC 807 ; State Bank of India & Ors. v. B.R. Saini
(2018) 11 SCC 83 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
(1994) 2 SCC 615
referred to
Para 7
2019 (7) JT 288
referred to
Para 7
(2018) 12 SCC 807
referred to
Para 8
(2018) 11 SCC 83
referred to
Para 8
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
771
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5842
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.04.2017 of the High Court
at Calcutta in in CAN No. 8866 of 2016 in FMA No. 1898 of 2016.
Sanjay Kapur, Kauser Husain, Ms. Megha Karnwal, Ms. Shubhra
Kapur, Advs. for the Appellants.
Anand, Abhijit Sengupta, Kumar Neeraj, Ms. Rajeshri N. Reddy,
Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The order of the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta
dated April 7, 2017 is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.
3. The respondent - Atindra Nath Bhattacharyya was charge
sheeted on December 28, 1999 containing 16 charges on the ground that
while working as Chief Manager of Baghbazar Branch of the Bank
from November 19, 1997 

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