BILASPUR RAIPUR K.GRAMIN BANK Vs MADANLAL TANDON
Bench: M.Y. EQBAL,S.A. BOBDE
Case number: C.A. No.-004467-004467 / 2015
Diary number: 19657 / 2012
Advocates: MANJEET KIRPAL Vs
NIKHIL NAYYAR
Page 1
‘REPORTABLE’
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. 4467 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C)No. 22488 of 2012)
Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and another …..Appellant(s)
versus
Madanlal Tandon …..Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT M. Y. EQBAL, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the
judgment and order dated 17th February, 2012, whereby
Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in the writ
appeal preferred by the appellants upheld the order of the
learned Single Judge and directed payment towards
respondent’s claim of salary up to Rs.5,00,000/- with all
consequential benefits.
1
Page 2
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent was
working as a Field Supervisor in the appellant Bank since
1981. In February, 1984, a charge-sheet was issued to him
for having committed misconduct and after a departmental
inquiry, an order dated 5.7.1984 was passed by the
Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment of stoppage of his
two annual increments. Thereafter a second charge-sheet was
issued to the respondent in November, 1987 alleging that the
respondent had committed several financial irregularities in
various loan cases. An inquiry was conducted, wherein
fourteen charges were found proved against the respondent
and three charges were not found proved. Consequently, the
punishment of removal from service was inflicted against the
respondent on 1.10.1991. Respondent preferred an appeal
before the Board of Directors of the appellant Bank, but the
same was dismissed.
2
Page 3
4. The respondent, therefore, moved the High Court by way
of writ petition, inter alia contending that both the
charge-sheets being identical, the second inquiry was not
competent. It was also contended that along with the second
charge-sheet, neither the list of documents nor the documents
sought to be relied upon were supplied. It was also contended
by the respondent-writ petitioner that appropriate opportunity
was not afforded to him to have inspection of the relevant
documents and as such the respondent was not in a position
to reply the said show cause notice effectively and to defend
him in the inquiry. Learned Single Judge of the High Court
rejected his first contention and held that the charges were not
identical and, therefore, the second inquiry was competent.
However, it was held that along with the charge-sheet and
imputation of charges, there was no list of documents and list
of witnesses were also not supplied as such the respondent
was not afforded an opportunity to put forward his case in
response to show cause notice along with the charge-sheet.
Observing that the object of rules of natural justice is to
3
Page 4
ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in
proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment
including dismissal/removal from service, learned Single
Judge of the High Court quashed the orders of removal passed
by the appellant and allowed the writ petition of the
respondent with all consequential benefits.
5. Aggrieved by aforesaid decision, the appellants preferred
writ appeal, wherein Division Bench of the High Court, after
perusing the record, found that although the show cause
notice was served along with 17 charges, but no documents
were supplied along with the show cause to the respondent.
Even the list of documents sought to be relied during the
inquiry was not supplied along with the show cause. The
Division Bench opined that it is trite law that when a
delinquent employee is facing disciplinary proceeding, he is
entitled to be afforded with a reasonable opportunity to meet
the charges against him in an effective manner. If the copies
4
Page 5
of the documents are not supplied to the concerned employee,
it would be difficult for him to prepare his defence and to
cross-examine the witnesses and point out the inconsistencies
with a view to show that the allegations are false or baseless.
6. The Division Bench of the High Court further observed
that in the instant case neither the list of witnesses nor the list
of documents was supplied to the respondent along with the
charge-sheet. Though during the course of inquiry some
documents were supplied to him but those documents, on
which the reliance was placed by the Inquiry Officer for
holding various charges proved, were not supplied to the
respondent. The High Court further observed that the
respondent is out of employment since 01.10.1991 and his
claim for arrears of salary, as stated by counsel for both the
parties, would be more than 45-50 lakhs. The Bank’s money
is public money and a huge amount cannot be paid to anyone
for doing no work. The principle of “no work no pay” has been
5
Page 6
evolved in view of the public interest that an employee who
does not discharge his duty is not entitled to arrears of salary
at the cost of public exchequer. By way of impugned
judgment, the High Court, therefore, concluded that in the
facts and circumstances of the case a lump-sum payment of
Rs. 5,00,000/- towards the claim of salary, would be just and
proper in this matter. The respondent was also held to be
entitled to all other consequential benefits.
7. Hence, the present appeal by special leave by the
appellant Bank and its Board of Directors. It is worth to
mention here that the respondent has not come to this Court
against the impugned judgment passed by the High Court.
8. We have heard Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, learned counsel
for the appellants and Mr. T.V.S. Raghavendra Sreyas, learned
counsel for the respondent. We have also perused the
6
Page 7
impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court. The only controversy that falls for our consideration is
as to whether the documents, which were the basis of the
charges leveled against the respondent, were supplied to the
respondent or not?
9. Indisputably, no documents were supplied to the
respondent along with the charge-sheet on the basis of which
charges were framed. Some of the documents were given
during departmental inquiry, but relevant documents on the
basis of which findings were recorded were not made available
to the respondent. It further appears that the list of
documents and witnesses were also not supplied and some of
the documents were produced during the course of inquiry.
10. Admittedly, show cause notice was served along with 17
charges, but all the documents were not supplied to the
7
Page 8
respondent. A perusal of the impugned order will show that
when the Division Bench, during the course of arguments,
asked the learned counsel appearing for the appellants
whether documents viz. P-21, P-25, P-23, P-19, P-30, P-31 &
P-32 were supplied to the respondent, on the basis of which
various charges have been held to be proved, learned counsel
was not able to demonstrate that the above documents were
supplied to the respondent even during the course of inquiry.
The Division Bench then following a catena of decisions of this
Court came to the conclusion that the order of punishment
cannot be sustained in law. However, taking into
consideration the fact that the respondent was out of
employment since 1991, a lump sum payment of
Rs.5,00,000/- towards the salary would meet the ends of
justice.
11. After giving our anxious consideration, we do not find
any reason to differ with the finding recorded by the learned
8
Page 9
Single Judge and also the Division Bench of the High Court in
writ appeal. Therefore, this civil appeal is dismissed.
…………………………….J. (M.Y. Eqbal)
…………………………….J. (S.A. Bobde)
New Delhi May 15, 2015
9