SYNDICATE BANK AND ORS. versus VENKATESH GURURAO KURATI

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 920 · Decided: 31-01-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SYNDICATE BANK AND ORS. 
v. 
VEN KA TESH GURURAO KURA Tl 
JANUARY 31, 2006 
B 
[H.K. SEMA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Bank employee removed from service for misappropriation of bank 
C funds after enquiry---Writ Petition by the delinquent employee before High 
Court-High Court upheld the findings on the charges framed against the 
delif!quent employee but converted the order of removal of service to 
compulsory retirement on compassionate grounds-·Writ Appeal by the 
delinquent employee and cross-objections by the Bank before High Court-
D High Court allowed the Writ Appeal of the employee on the ground of non-
'* 
supply of documents to the employee --Correctness of-Held, on facts, non-
supply of documents. which did not form part of the charges and not relied 
upon by the Enquiry Officer, did not create any prejudice to the delinquent 
employee and hence is not violative of principles of natural justice-Sentiments 
and compassion have no role to play when the gravity of misconduct of the 
B delinquent employee is well proved-Hence the order of removal of service 
of the delinquent employee passed by the Disciplinary Authority is restored 
Respondent was working as Manager of the appellant-Bank. There were 
allegations that the respondent, during service, colluded with certain staff 
m!mbers, got necessary documents signed, arranged loans in the name of 
F poor illiterate villagers under the Integrated Rural Development Program and 
misappropriated the proceeds of such loans. On the basis of the allegations, 
the appellant framed charges and initiated enquiry against the respondent by 
appointing an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry 
and submitted a report finding the respondent guilty of the charges. The 
G Disciplinary Authority accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and ordered 
removal of the respondent from the service with immediate effect. 
H 
The respondent filed an appeal before Appellate Authority which was 
dismissed. The respondent filed a Writ Petition before High Court. A learned 
920 
} 
SYNDICATEBANKv. VENKATESHGURURAOKURATI 
921 
I 
Single Judge of the High Court held that it is not a fit case for interference A 
with the finding on the charges framed against the respondent. However, since 
the respondent was dismissed from service just two days prior to the date of 
superannuation, the learned Single Judge converted the order of removal from 
service into compulsory retirement on compassionate grounds. The respondent 
filed a Writ Appeal before the High Court. The appellants also filed cross 
objections before the High Court. The Division Bench allowed the Writ Appeal B 
of the respondent on the ground of non-supply of documents to the respondent 
which vitiated the enquiry resulting in the removal of the respondent from 
the service. 
In appeal to the Court, the appellants contended that only those C 
documents, which did not form part of the charges and were not relied upon 
by the Inquiry Officer, were not furnished to the respondent; and that other 
relevant documents were furnished to the respondent. 
The respondent contended that denial of the documents, which did not 
~ 
form part of the charges or relied upon by the Enquiry Officer, would D 
{ 
nevertheless prejudice his case because the denial of contemporary documents 
deprive his right to set up effective defence; and that on compassionate grounds, 
since he was dismissed from service just two days prior to the age of 
superannuation, he may be entitled to get pension and gratuity. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD; I.I. The non-supply of documents on which the Enquiry Officer 
does not rely during the course of enquiry does not create any prejudice to 
the delinquent. It is only those documents, which are relied upon by the 
Enquiry Officer to arrive at his conclusion, the non-supply of which would 
cause prejudice being violative of principles of natural justice. Even then, the 
non-supply of those documents prejudice the case of delinquent officer must 
be established by the delinquent officer. It is well settled law that the doctrine 
of principles of natural justice are not embodied rules. It cannot be put in a 
straitjacket formula. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 
E 
F 
·.;. 
To sustain the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice, one must G 
establish that prejudice has been caused to him for non-observance of 
principles of natural jus

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