THE WEST BENGAL STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. ORS. versus PARITOSH BEGCHI AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 499 · Decided: 19-10-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

THE WEST BENGAL STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. ORS. 
A 
v. 
PARJTOSH BEGCHI AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 19, 1995 
!J.S. VERMA AND K. VENKATASWAMI, .1.1.J 
B 
Se1vice Law : 
Depmtmental b1quily--Opport11nity of being heard---Copy of Inqui1y 
repo1t and a further notice to show cause against proposed punishment served C 
upon delinquent-Held, employee was afforded reasonable opportunity. 
Respondent no. 1, an employee of the appellant-bank, was served 
with a charge-sheet and was called upon to show cause against the charges 
brought out against him. On receipt of his reply, he was subjected to a 
regular departmental inquiry. On completion of the enquiry, the discipli- D 
nary authority issued a further notice to the respondent along with a copy 
of the inquiry report, to show cause against the proposed punishm•'lt. The 
respondent challenged the notice before the High Court in a writ petition. 
Meanwhile, the respondent was dismissed from service. He withdrew E 
the earlier writ petition and filed a fresh writ petition challenging the order 
of dismissal. The Single Judge of the High Court set aside the inquiry 
proceedings giving liberty to the appellant to proceed against the respon-
dent afresh. The respondent, dissatisfied with the order, appealed to the 
Division Bench of the High Court, .which upheld the disciplinary proceed-
ings upto the stage of second show cause notice and observed that the 
disciplinary authority could proceed afresh and decide whether a second 
show cause notice should be issued to the respondent against the proposed 
punishment. Accordingly, tlie Bank called upon the respondent to furnish 
F 
his explanation. The respondent instead of giving any explanation with 
regard to the findings of the in<Juiry ollicer, treated the show cause notices G 
as not in conformity with the directions given by the High Court. The 
Management after considering the representations of the respondent and 
hearing him personally, imposed upon him the penalty of dismissal. The 
respondent challenged the said order before the High Court in a writ 
petition which was dismissed. 
H 
499 
500 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court held that the 
Management did not take a decision pursuant to the liberty given by the 
earlier llivision Bench with regard t.o issuance of a second show cause 
notice before passing the order of dismissal. It gave liberty to the appellant 
to proceed afresh after giving a second sho"' cause notice against the 
B 
proposed punishment. Aggrieved, the Bank filed the appeal by special 
leave. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. The respondent was given reasonable opportunity before 
C 
imposing the penalty of dismissal and the Division Bench of the High 
Court was not justified in setting aside the order of dismissal on the sole 
ground that there was no second show cause notice issued before the 
impugned order was passed. [503-}'] 
D 
E 
F 
G 
1.2. Factually a second show cause notice was given and the respon-
dent was not diligent enough to avail the opportunity. The respondent was 
supplied with the copy of the enquiry report. lie was called upon to submit 
his explanation in the light of earlier Division Bench judgment. The 
respondent instead of submitting his explanation found fault with the form 
of notice and raised contentions not relevant to the issue. (503-E] 
Managing Director EC/L, Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Kanmakar and Ors., 
[19931 4 sec 727, cited. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9491 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.9.93 of the Calcutta High 
Court in F.M.A.T. No. 1182 of 1992. 
Tapas Ray, B.D. Singh and S.K. Jain for the Appellants. 
D.P. Mukherjee and S.K. Ghosh for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
K. VENKATASWAMI, J. Leave granted. Heard Counsel on both 
H 
sides. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 
W.H.STATECOOPERATIVEBANKLTD. c. P. BEGCHI{K VENKATASWAMl.l.] 
501 
3.9.1993 passed in F.MAT. No. 1182 on the file of the High Court of A 
Calcutta. 
The first respondent was in the service of the appellant Bank. A 
charge-sheet was issued on ll.5.1981 against him calling upon the first 
respondent to show cause against the charges brought against him. On 
receipt of reply to the show cause notice a regular departmental enquiry 
was held and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report. Thereafter, the 
disciplinary authority accepting the enquiry

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