THE CHAIRMAN, STATE BANK OF INDIA AND versus M. J. JAMES

Citation: [2021] 7 S.C.R. 373 · Decided: 16-11-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 11 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
373
THE CHAIRMAN, STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
v.
M. J. JAMES
(Civil Appeal No. 8223 of 2009)
NOVEMBER 16, 2021
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Bank of Cochin Service Code: Clause 22(ix)(a) Chapter VIII
– Violation of – Disciplinary proceedings against the Bank Manager
for sanctioning advances in violation of the Head Office instructions
causing financial loss to the Bank – Bank manager not allowed to
be represented by an office bearer of an employees association of
another organisation – Thereafter, Manager dismissed from service
– Challenge to, after almost four and a half years – Both the Single
Judge as also the Division Bench of the High Court quashed the
disciplinary proceedings against the Bank Manager – On appeal,
held: Observations and findings in the disciplinary proceedings on
the aspect of irregularities regarding exceeding his authority in the
grant of advances, clear and undisputed – Bank Manager was aware
that his request to be represented by a representative of his own
choice had been rejected – Even then he took time and decided not
to file an appeal before the Board of Directors against the order of
the inquiry officer rejecting his request – On the alibi, the Manager
did not furnish any details or particulars of cases or instances and
had refused to lead evidence – As per Clause 22(ix)(a), an officer
can also be permitted to be defended by a representative of a
registered union/association of ‘bank’ employees, which means an
union/association of the employees of the Bank of Cochin and not
of any or other banks – Provision does not stipulate that the
employee requires permission from any authority or the inquiry
officer for representation – Furthermore, the dismissal order
remained unchallenged for more than four years – Though the
Service Code does not stipulate any time period within which the
appeal may be preferred but it should be within a reasonable time
depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case – Right
not exercised for a long time is non-existent – Doctrine of delay
and laches as well as acquiescence are applied to non-suit such
litigants – In the instant case, challenge to the order of dismissal
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 373
373
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
374
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
from service by way of appeal was after four years, which was
highly belated and beyond justifiable time – Court is to consciously
examine whether a party has chosen to sit over the matter and has
woken up to gain any advantage and benefit – These facets, when
proven, must be factored and balanced, even when there is delay
and laches on the part of the authorities – Studied silence of the
respondent, was with an ulterior motive as he wanted to take benefit
of the slipup though he had suffered dismissal – Thus, the judgment
passed by the High Court is set aside and the order of dismissal is
upheld – Service law.
Clause 22(ix)(a), 2(e) – Object of definition clauses – Held:
Is to avoid frequent repetition in describing the subject matter to
which the word or expression is intended to apply – This is useful
when the same word or expression is used more than once in the
same enactment – Definition can be with the intent to attract a
meaning already established by law; expand the meaning by adding
a meaning; or narrow the meaning by exclusion – Repugnancy will
arise when the definition meaning does not agree with the subject
in the context – On facts, repugnancy not indicated and does not
arise in the context of Clause 22(ix)(a) by mere absence of article
‘the’ in Clause 22(ix)(a) before the word ‘bank’.
Inquiry: Domestic inquiry – Choice of representation – Right
of – Held: Right to be represented by a counsel or agent of one’s
choice is not an absolute right but can be controlled or regulated
by law, rules, or regulations – However, if the charge is of severe
and complex nature, then the request to be represented through a
counsel or agent should be considered – Said proposition flows
from the entitlement of fair hearing, applicable in judicial as well
as quasi-judicial decisions.
‘Acquiescence’ and ‘delay and laches’ – Distinction between
– Held: Doctrine of acquiescence is an equitable doctrine which
applies when a party having a right stands by and sees another
dealing in a manner inconsistent with that right – Acquiescence
virtually destroys the right of the person – However, both limitation
and laches destroy the remedy but not the right – Laches like
acquiescence is based u

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