STATE BANK OF PATIALA AND ORS. versus S.K. SHARMA

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 972 · Decided: 27-03-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 13 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE BANK OF PATIALA AND ORS. 
v. 
S.K. SHARMA 
MARCH 27, 1996 
B 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND KS. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
c 
Se1vice Law : 
State Bank of Patiala (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979: Regulation 
68(ii}(x}(b )(iii). 
Departmental enquby-Natural justice-Statements of two wit-
nesses-Copies of-Not supplied to delinquenHiowever, he was pem1itted 
to pemse them and take notes therefrom more than three days p1ior to their 
exami11ati01r-No objection raised by delinquent during enqui1y-Held : 
D Regulation substantially complied with-No prejudice caused to delin-
quent-No inte1ference with enquby and order of removal called for. 
' 
Depwtmental enquby-Temporary misappropriation-By bank of-
fice1-Statements of witnesses and complainant-Recorded at preliminary 
enqui1y-Charges established by enquiry officer inspite of non-examination of 
E complainant-Held: Finding by High Cowt that it was a case of 'no evidence 
as coniplainant. was not exa!nined, unsustainable in law. 
Adniinistfative law : 
Natural Justice--Action in violation of rules/regulations/statutory 
F JJrovisions-b1cu1porati11.g pri11ci11les of natural justice (audi alteranz JJar-
temf-Va/idity of-Principles laid dow1r-Substantive provisions-Nomially 
to be co1nplied wit/1-Procedural provision-Neither substantial nor 111an-
dat01y-lf no prejudice caused no inte1ference of cowt called fo,-Substantial 
contpliance with such provision enough. 
G 
Natural justice-Rules I Regulatio11s/Stattlf 01)1 provisions-Nol incor-
porating p1inciples of-But such p!inciples implied by nan;re of order/ac-
tion-Held : "no O]Jpo1ttu1ity
11
/
11no hcaring'i_An1ou11ted to tota_/ violation of 
such princijJ/es--"No adequate opportunity
11/'no fair hea1ing"-A1nounted to 
violation of only a facet of such principle.1-0rder/action-Fo1111er case would 
H be invalid-Latter cas~Test of prejudice to be applied-If 110 prejudice 
972 
~­
I 
STATEBANKOFPATIALAv. S.K.SHARMA 
973 
caused, order actio11 wollld be valid. 
Natul·al fllstic~Principles of-Mere technical violation of-Held: set-
ting aside punishnzent and entire enquily would be negation of justice and 
not jllstified. 
A 
Natural jllstic~Audi a/teram paitem-Object of-To enmre fair hear-
B 
ing and no failure of justic~Where State or pllblic interest called for curtail-· 
ing of 111/e, court nzust balance such interest -tt·itlz requiren1e11t of natural 
jllstice before arriving at a11 appropriate decisio11. 
Judicial review-Scope of-Natural J11stice-Pri11ciples of-Question of 
compliance with-Held : scope was the same whether it was writ petition C 
under Article 226 or civil suit. 
Mandatory provision-Waiver of-Could be waived by person con-
cerned if,ft was in public interest. 
Words and Phrases : "Waiver''--1\feaning of 
D 
The respondent was working as Manager of a branch of the appel-
lant-Bank- Father of one B had taken loan from handed the appellant-
Bank and after his death B came and handed over the amount to the 
respondent in discharge of the loan. The respondent was subsequently E 
transferred to another branch. B discovered that the amount paid by him 
to the respondent was not credited to his/his father's account. Soon 
thereafter the amount was deposited in the Bank in the name of B. The 
Appellant-Bank's case was that having received the amount from B, the 
respondent did n~t credit the said amount into Bank account immediately, F 
though he issued a letter to the effect that since the crop lo<ln amount bad 
been adjusted, the entry regarding mortgage ofland of the loanee in favour· 
-----
' 
of the Bank be revoked. 
' 
Before ordering a regular oral enquiry, the Bank had directed two 
of its officers to conduct a preliminary enquiry 3.gainst the respondent. The G 
said officers examined "itnesses including B and the Patwari of the village 
arid also gathered necessary documentary evidence. On the basis of the 
preliminary report, a regular enquiry was ordered. The Bank and the 
,, 
Rspondeitt examined their respecthre ·witnesses. B, who was ihe com· 
plainant, did not appear as a witness at the regular enquiry. However, the H 
974 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 
A Patwari was examined as a witness at the regular enquiry. Though the 
copies of the statements of B and the Patwari were not supplied to the 
respondent, he was permitted to peruse the same more than three days 
prior to the commencement of the examination of witnesses. 
B 
At the conclusion of the enc1uiry, a report was submitted by the 
en

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