STATE BANK OF INDIA versus R. K. JAIN & ORS.

Citation: [1972] 1 S.C.R. 755 · Decided: 17-09-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
I) 
E 
F 
H 
S1'ATE BANK OF INDIA 
1'. 
R. K. JAIN & ORS. 
September 17, 1971 
755 
[C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND P. JAGANMOTJAN REDDY, JJ.] 
Industrial LaW-Domestic ·enquiry-Defence 
witnesses not summbn-
ed-lf violative of principles of natural 
justice-Sastri 
Award, 
para. 
521(10) (¢)-Scope of-Enquiry before Industrial 
Tribunal-Right of 
1nanage111ent to justify dismissal even if do1nestic enquiry vitiated--Scopi! 
of. 
The first respondent was a Money Tester in the appellant bank and 
was deputed to supervise the remittance of unissuable notes from the 
branch of the appellant to the Notes Cancellation .and Verification Sec-
tion df the branch of the Reserve Bank of India for destruction. 
On 1he 
allegation that, in order to avoid liability, he deliberately tore off the 
label containing his initials, on a packet of notes in which there was 
a 
shortage, the appellant ordered an inquiry. At the inquiry, the respon' 
dent examined two defence witnesses who were cashiers of the appellant 
from different branches. Some officers of Reserve Bank of India who 
gave evidence for the appellant refused to be cross examined and did not 
answer any question put to them in cross-examination. 
Notwithstanding 
the irregularity the inquiry proceeded and the inquiry officer submitted 
his report finding \he 'respondent guilty. The appellant however, ordered 
a de nova inquiry by another officer. 
During that inquiry, in which the 
first respondent took part under protest, he requested the inquiry officer 
to summon his two defence- witnesses who we'fe examined at the earlier 
enquiry and three others all employees of the appellant. 
The inquiry 
officer rejected the request regarding the three new 
witnesses 
on the 
ground that their evidence would not be relevant, and as regards the 
other two, he informed the respondent that he should arrange for produc-
·ing them at the inquiry at his own expense. The respondent pleaded that 
he already incurred a considerable expense in that regard, that the second 
inquiry was being held due to no fault of his, and therefore, he regretted 
ms- inability to have the witnesses summoned 
at his expense 
He 
also 
requested that in case the two witnesses were not summoned on his bei'ialf 
their evidence in the earlier enquiry may be treated as evidence in 
the 
second inquiry. 
But his plea was not accepted and the J#oceedings were 
conducted· v,rithout those witnesses being examined on.behalf of the res-
pondent. The enquiry officer submitted 
his report finding the respon-
dent guilty. The respondent was asked to show cause why the proposed 
punishment of discharge 
from service without notice in term<; of para. 
521(lO)(c) of the Sastri Award should not be imposed. After consider-
ing his reply the appellant discharged him from se·rvice. 
The Central Government referred the dispute as to whether the appel-
lant was justified in discharging the respondent 
from its service, to 
the 
Industrial Tribunal. 
"The Industrial Tribunal held that the respondent was not afforded a 
reasonable opportunity to produce evidence in his. de.fence. 
<lurin~ !he 
second inquiry and that the management was. no~ 1ust1fied in temunating 
his services on the basis of the report of t~e 1nqu1ry officer. 
I to this Court it was contended that : (I) the. Tribunal had 
no ~~r~~~on to set asid~ the order of the management d1scharg1ng the 
vss 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
. [1972] 1 S.C.R. 
workman 'from service when there was no finding that the appellant acted 
mala fide or with a view to victimise the employee; (2) even if it was held 
that the evidence was not sufficient to justify the order of discharge never-
theless, under the last part of the para. 521(10)(c) of the Sastri Award 
the appellant had jurisdiction to pass the order of discharge; 
and 
(3) 
even assuming that the domestic inquiry conducted by the appellant was 
in any manner vitiated, the Tribunal erred in law in not giving an oppor; 
tunity to the management to adduce evidence before the Tribunal to 
C$lablish the validity of the order of discharge. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : ( 1) The order terminating the services of a workman can be 
set aside when there has been a violation ot the principles 
of natural 
justice. Though normally it may be the duty of a workman to have his 
witnesses produced before the inquiry officer, in the particular circums-
tances of this case the position was different. The workmen had incurred 
heavy expenses in the 

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