STATE BANK OF INDIA versus K.C. THARAKAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 1012 · Decided: 04-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ST ATE BANK OF INDIA 
v. 
K.C. THARAKAN AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 4, 2005 
B 
[S.N. VARIAVA AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Discharge-Misconduct-Bank employee found copying in departmental 
C examination-Employee made a/legations against the invigilator who was a 
senior officer of the Bank-Bank issued a charge sheet charging the employee 
on the ground that he had misconducted himself by making serious a/legation 
against a senior officer-Bank also charged the employee for indulging in a 
conduct which was prejudicial to the interests of the Bank-Employee refused 
D to participate in the disciplinary inquiry-Bank discharged the employee-
However, High court directed reinstatement of the employee with back wages-
Correctness of-Held: Allegations of corruption against a senior officer would 
affect the interests of the Bank-It makes no difference whether the a/legation 
of corruption is in respect of the work of the Bank or in respect of the conduct/ 
work of the Officer outside the Bank-771e reputation of the Bank gets affected 
E if an allegation is made that its Officers are corrupt-Employee himself was 
responsible for the gross /aches and delay-Hence, High Court not justified 
in directing reinstatement of the employee with back wages. 
F 
The respondent joined the appellant-Bank as a Clerk-cum-Typist. 
The respondent appeared in the CAllB examination conducted by the 
Indian Institute of Bankers (llB). One of the senior officers of the 
appellant-Bank was the Invigilator during the examination. The said 
Invigilator found that the respondent was copying from bo.oks and sent a 
report to 118. The result of the examination of the respondent was 
cancelled. The respondent made certain allegation against the said 
G Invigilator. 
H 
The appellant-Bank, on 8.4.1969, issued a charge sheet against the 
respondent on the ground that he had misconducted himself by making 
serious allegations against a senior officer. The appellants charged the 
1012 
STATE BANK OF INDIA v. K.C. THARAKAN 
1013 
respondent with indulging in a conduct which was prejudicial to the A 
interests of the Bank. The respondent refused to participate in the inquiry. 
The appellant-Bank discharged the respondent on 6.12.1969. The Central 
Government referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. However, the 
respondent did not appear before the Tribunal. The Tribunal proceeded 
ex-parte, considered all the materials before it, and held that the discharge B 
of the respondent was justified. The review petition filed by the respondent 
after more than four years was dismissed. 
In 1998, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court 
which directed reinstatement of the respondent with full back wages. The 
appellant-Bank filed a writ appeal and the High Court stayed payment of C 
back wages but the order of reinstatement was not stayed. Ultimately, the 
High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-Bank. Hence the 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The first aspect which must be dealt with is that the 
respondent has challenged the order dated 5.3.1969 of the Indian Institute 
of Bankers (IIB) for the first time in this writ petition. Thus, this challenge 
was after a period of 29 years. IIB had been made a party. llB objected 
to the order being passed against it. 11021-A-BJ 
D 
E 
1.2. The respondent has not been able to give any special reason for 
filing a writ petition against the Indian Institute of Bankers (llB) after 
such a long delay. The oral explanation that the order passed by the llB 
and by the appellant-Bank is arising out of the same incident emanating 
from a common enquiry is one which was merely required to be stated to F 
be rejected. It is beyond comprehension how the Single Judge could have 
accepted such an explanation. The respondent had raised a dispute which 
had been referred to the Industrial Tribunal. The only question which had 
been referred to was whether the action of the Management in discharging 
the respondent was justified. In such proceedings IIB's order would neither G 
be considered nor dealt with. Even if the respondent had succeeded before 
the Tribunal, the order of the IIB would have still stood. The respondent 
could have challenged that order in a Court of competent jurisdiction if 
he had so desired. Such a challenge had nothing to do with the action taken 
by the appellant-Bank. The enquiry was also not the same. IIB passed its 
order on the basis of some i

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