REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. ………………… OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP (C) No (s) 11590/2009]

State Bank of India and Ors.                 …APPELLANTS

VERSUS

Bidyut Kumar Mitra and Ors.               ...RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal  is directed against the final  

judgment and order dated 6th February,  

2009 passed by the Division Bench of the  

High  Court  at  Calcutta  in  M.A.T.  No.  

3613 of 2001 whereby the Division Bench  

quashed the enquiry proceedings against  

1

the respondent held on the basis of the  

charge sheet dated 14th December, 1981,  

enquiry  report  dated  22nd September,  

1982, the order of punishment dated 4th  

July,  1983,  the order dated         6th  

June,  1984  passed  by  the  Appellate  

Authority  as  also  the  resolution  dated  

12th November,  1987  adopted  in  the  

meeting of the Review Committee of the  

appellant Bank.   

3. The respondent was appointed as a Clerk  

in the Imperial Bank of India, which is a  

predecessor of the appellant Bank.  Way  

back in November, 1944, he had joined in  

the capacity of a Clerk.  Subsequently, by  

the  year  1978-79,  he  was  working  as  

Branch  Manager  at  the  Biplabi  Rash  

Behari Bose Road Branch, Calcutta of the  

appellant  Bank.   In  the  capacity  of  a  

2

Branch  Manager,  he  granted  numerous  

mid-term loans to a number of transport  

operators  without  making  appropriate  

scrutiny  of  the  applications  as  required  

under the rules.  He had also granted the  

loans in excess of his discretionary power  

thereby exposed the Bank to the risk of  

serious financial loss.   

4. A  charge  sheet  dated  14th December,  

1981 was served upon him alleging that  

he, during his incumbency as the Branch  

Manager of the Biplabi Rash Behari Bose  

Road  Branch,  Calcutta  from  29th  

February, 1978           to  21st August,  

1979 had granted medium term loans to  

large  number  of  transport  operators  

without making thorough scrutiny of the  

relative proposals. He had sanctioned the  

loans  even  before  completion  of  the  

3

necessary  formalities.   The  loans  were  

granted  without  making  any  discreet  

enquiries to the credit worthiness of the  

borrowers/guarantors.   He  had  thus  

violated  the  laid  down  norms  and  

instructions  of  the  Bank  in  this  regard  

and thereby exposed the  Bank to grave  

risk  of  financial  loss.   The  gist  of  the  

allegations was as follows:-

“(i) (a) granting  loans,  in  as  many  as 29 cases (as per Annexure ‘B’) out of 57 such cases,  far in excess of the discretionary powers vested in you in  terms of H.O. ‘SIB’ Circular No.57 of 1979;

(b) Sanctioning  the  loans  in  question without compiling the necessary opinion reports  on the borrowers/guarantors properly; and

(c) allowing  most  of  these  borrowers  to  stand  AS  guarantors  for  the  advances  granted to others and vice-versa (as per Annexure ‘C’);

(ii) It has further been alleged against you that- (a) You  had  failed  to  submit  the  

necessary  control  returns  in  respect  of  the  Medium Terms  Loans  in  question  to  the  Controlling  Authority  at  the  appropriate  time  despite  reminders:

4

(b) You had made full payment to  a body building firm viz. M/s.  C.A.  Engineers  and  Body  Buildings, Calcutta as per their  quotation  long  before  the  delivery  of  the  chassis  by  the  suppliers, in respect of a loan  of  Rs.1,92,000/-  granted  to  Shri  Ashoke  Kumar  Sengupta  (MTL No.21) on the 21st April,  1979;

(c) You  had  allowed  clean  overdrafts  to  some  of  these  borrowers  (as  per  Annexure  ‘D’),  presumably to meet their  margin  requirements,  without  obtaining any letters of request  and  without  stipulating  any  repayment  programme  therefore  and  even  without  reporting  the  matter  to  your  Controlling Authority.”   

5. It  was  alleged  that  he  had acted  in  an  

extremely negligent manner and thereby  

contravened the provisions of Rules 32(3)  

and  32(4)  of  the  State  Bank  of  India  

(Supervising  Staff)  Service  Rules  

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Service Rules’).  

It  was  further  stated  that  the  above  

charges,  if  proved,  would  amount  to  

5

lapses involving lack of devotion to duty  

and would be construed as prejudicial to  

the interests of the Bank.  Consequently,  

he was asked to show cause within fifteen  

days as to why disciplinary action should  

not be taken against him.  A copy of the  

list  of  documents  and  list  of  witnesses  

relied upon by the Bank were supplied to  

the respondent.   

6. On 11th March, 1982, Shri A.R. Banerjee,  

Commissioner  of  Departmental  

Enquiries, Central Vigilance Commission  

(hereinafter  referred  to  as  ‘CVC’)  was  

appointed  as  the  Enquiry  Officer.   The  

Enquiry  Officer  instructed  the  Bank  to  

show  all  the  documents  including  the  

additional documents relied upon by it to  

the  defence  by  20th March,  1982.   The  

defence assistant of the respondent was  

6

also instructed to submit the list  of  the  

defence  documents  required,  if  any,  

by  31st March,  1982  along  with  the  

respective relevancy to the charge sheet  

and likely whereabouts of the documents.  

He was also instructed to submit the list  

of  additional  witnesses,  which  were  

required  to  be  summoned  along  with  

their  latest  addresses.   By  letter  dated  

31st March,  1982,  the  respondent  

informed the Enquiry Officer that he shall  

submit the list of defence witnesses and  

documents  within  “a  couple  of  days”.  

Thereafter,  the defence representative  of  

the respondent by letter dated 3rd April,  

1982  addressed  to  the  Enquiry  Officer,  

submitted  a  list  of  witnesses  and  

documents of the defence.  According to  

the respondent, all the witnesses referred  

to in the list of witnesses were officers of  

7

the  Bank.   Similarly,  the  documents  

referred to, were also in the possession of  

the management of the Bank.  Therefore,  

the  respondent  claimed  that  he  was  

unable to produce either the witnesses or  

the documents in support of his defence,  

unless  they  were  summoned  by  the  

Enquiry Officer.   

7. It appears that the two witnesses referred  

to  in  the  said  application  of  the  

respondent  were  summoned.   However,  

the  documents  relied  upon  by  the  

respondent  were  not  requisitioned.   It  

was  the  case  of  the  respondent  that  in  

fact his prayer in respect of the aforesaid  

documents was never disposed of and no  

reason  was  assigned  by  the  Enquiry  

Officer  for  not  requisitioning  such  

documents.  It appears that the aforesaid  

8

issue  was  also  not  dealt  with  by  the  

Enquiry  Officer  in  the  Enquiry  Report  

dated  22nd September,  1982.   On  this  

short  ground,  the  respondent  had  

claimed  that  he  was  denied  reasonable  

opportunity of hearing at the enquiry and  

the same has caused serious prejudice to  

his defence.  

8. On 16th September, 1982, the respondent  

submitted the defence arguments in the  

form of a written brief.  In the aforesaid  

brief,  the  respondent  did  not  raise  the  

issue  of  non-supply  of  any  documents.  

On  16th June,  1983,  the  Disciplinary  

Authority forwarded his comments and a  

note  on  the  enquiry  proceeding  to  the  

Appointing  Authority.   In this  note,  the  

Disciplinary  Authority  agreed  with  the  

findings  of  the  Enquiry  Officer.   It  was  

9

mentioned that it has been proved at the  

enquiry  that  the  respondent  granted  

medium term loans to a large number of  

transport  operators,  not  in  a  proper  

manner, thus exposed the Bank to a risk  

of  substantial  financial  loss.   It  was  

further  mentioned  that  while  granting  

advances,  the  respondent  should  have  

ascertained his discretionary powers and  

followed  the  Bank  instructions.   The  

Disciplinary  Authority  recommended the  

imposition of penalty of dismissal on the  

respondent.   

9. By  order  dated  4th July,  1983,  the  

Appointing  Authority,  upon examination  

of the records pertaining to the enquiry,  

agreed  with  the  findings  of  the  

Disciplinary  Authority  and  imposed  the  

punishment  of  dismissal  on  the  

10

respondent  in  terms of  Rule  49(h)  read  

with         Rule 50(3)(iii) of the Service  

Rules effective from the date of the receipt  

of the aforesaid order.   

10. Aggrieved  by  the  aforesaid  order  of  

dismissal,  the  respondent  filed  a  

departmental appeal                         on  

31st August,  1983.   In  the  aforesaid  

appeal, the respondent for the first time  

alleged  violation  of  principle  of  natural  

justice due to non-supply of  documents  

as requested through his letter dated 3rd  

April,  1982.   However,  there  was  no  

averment with regard to the non-supply  

of CVC recommendations.  Furthermore,  

the  respondent  had  not  given  any  

particulars as to what prejudice had been  

caused to him during the course of  the  

enquiry  proceeding.   Such  an  objection  

11

was  also  not  raised  by  the  respondent  

while the enquiry was being conducted.   

11. By  order  dated  6th June,  1984,  the  

Appellate  Authority  upheld  the  order  of  

the  Appointing  Authority  imposing  the  

punishment of dismissal.  With regard to  

the non-supply of  some documents,  the  

Appellate Authority held that respondent  

had failed to submit the list of documents  

and witnesses within the stipulated time.  

Furthermore,  he  did  not  raise  any  

objection  during  the  course  of  the  

enquiry.   

12. Being  aggrieved  by  the  aforesaid  order  

of  1st December,  1984,  the  respondent  

filed  a  review  application.   He  made  a  

grievance that neither the Enquiry Officer  

nor  the  Disciplinary  Authority  or  the  

12

Appellate  Authority  while  passing  the  

orders  considered  the  material  

contentions raised by the respondent in  

his written statement of defence as well  

as in his petition of appeal.  According to  

him, all the authorities proceeded with a  

predetermined mind and the orders have  

been passed mechanically.   For the first  

time,  he  made  a  grievance  that  neither  

the  documents  mentioned  in  the  

application  dated  3rd April,  1982  were  

requisitioned  nor  the  witnesses  

mentioned in  the  list  of  witnesses  were  

summoned.  He then proceeded to set out  

the  relevance  of  the  documents  which  

according to him would have enabled him  

to  prove  at  the  enquiry  that  priority  

sector  advance  was  given  utmost  

importance in the Bank’s policy.  It was,  

therefore,  incumbent  upon  him  as  

13

Branch  Manager  to  make  all  efforts  to  

increase  advances  in  the  priority  sector  

which  includes  transport  loans.   The  

opinion  reports  submitted  by  the  

respondent with regard to the loans were  

never  incomplete.  They  were  not  

produced  at  the  enquiry.   He  also  

highlighted that production of documents  

listed  at  Sr.  No.  12  would  have  shown  

that  the  respondent  was  absorbed  with  

the  work  relating  to  IDBI  Refinance,  

which  resulted  in  a  little  delay  in  

submitting  the  controlled  return.   He  

stated that the documents mentioned at  

Sr.  No.  14  would  have  shown that  the  

overdrafts  of  borrowers  were  sanctioned  

on the basis of request letters.  According  

to him, the document at Sr. No. 17 would  

have enabled him to prove that in priority  

sector  group  guarantee  or  counter  

14

guarantee  was  permissible  in  case  of  

loans  to  transport  borrowers.   He,  

therefore,  submitted  that  non-

summoning of such documents resulted  

in  denial  of  reasonable  opportunity  and  

was  in  gross  violation  of  principle  of  

natural justice.   

13. By  a  detailed  order  dated  12th/16th  

November,  1987,  the  Review  Committee  

declined to interfere with the order of the  

Appointing  Authority  which  had  been  

upheld by the Appellate Authority.   

14. Aggrieved  by  the  action  of  the  Bank in  

passing  the  aforesaid  order,  the  

respondent challenged the same in a Writ  

Petition Civil Order No. 7390 (W) of 1988  

in the High Court at Calcutta.  It would  

appear  that  for  the  first  time,  the  

15

respondent  raised  the  ground  of  non-

supply  of  the  vigilance  report.   He  also  

submitted that the refusal of the Bank to  

requisition the  documents  mentioned in  

the list of witnesses and to summon the  

witnesses named in the list of witnesses  

resulted  in  denial  of  reasonable  

opportunity of hearing at the enquiry and  

the same caused serious prejudice to his  

defence.   He  stated  that  out  of  the  

seventeen  documents  referred  to  in  the  

application  dated  3rd April,  1982,  the  

documents at Sr. No. 1, 2, 6, 12, 14 and  

17  were  most  vital  documents.   He  

reiterated the pleas which were raised in  

the Review Petition.     

15. The  appellant  Bank  filed  a  detailed  

counter affidavit in opposition to the writ  

petition  denying  all  allegations  and  

16

claims  of  the  respondent.   In  reply  to  

paras 10, 11 and 12 of the petition, it was  

stated  that  respondent  was  asked  to  

submit  his  list  of  documents  and  

witnesses     by 31st March, 1982, but he  

failed  to  do  so.   He  submitted  the  list  

after nearly two months and as such no  

action could be taken there upon.  It is  

reiterated  that  the  respondent  did  not  

make  any  grievance  about  the  non-

production of documents at the enquiry.  

He also did not raise any objection with  

regard  to  non-calling  of  any  witness  at  

the  enquiry.   It  was  stated  that  the  

allegations  with  regard  to  denial  of  

natural  justice  are  baseless  and  the  

respondent had in fact admitted that he  

committed the irregularity but he blamed  

the  Head  Office  for  not  warning  the  

respondent  well  in  advance.   His  

17

justification  about  the  group  guarantee  

was nullified by his own defence witness,  

a  Development  Manager,  who  deposed  

that  the  group  guarantee  is  meant  for  

poor  sections  of  the  community  under  

Differential Interest Rate (DIR) loans and  

not for transport operators.  It was also  

pointed  out  that  group  guarantees  are  

taken only for loans of about Rs.6,500/-  

or so and not for large amounts of Rs. 1  

Lac and above.  The appellant Bank also  

submitted that there were no violations of  

principle  of  natural  justice.   The  

appellant  Bank  also  submitted  that  

Presenting  Officer  made  repeated  

requests to the respondent to submit the  

list of documents and witnesses but the  

respondent ignored the requests.  It was  

only  about  two  months  later  when  the  

enquiry was virtually completed when the  

18

respondent  submitted  a  request  letter  

dated 3rd April, 1982.          

16. By judgment and order dated 18th April,  

2001, the learned Single Judge dismissed  

the  writ  petition.   Aggrieved  by  the  

judgment of the learned Single Judge, the  

respondent  challenged  the  same  in  

appeal  before  the  Division  Bench.   The  

Division Bench vide judgment and order  

dated  6th February,  2009  set  aside  the  

judgment  of  the  learned  Single  Judge  

dated  18th April,  2001  and  allowed  the  

writ petition.  Consequently, the Enquiry  

Report,  order  of  punishment  and  the  

subsequent  orders  of  the  Appellate  

Authority  as  also  the  resolution  passed  

by the Review Committee  were quashed  

and set aside.  The Bank has challenged  

19

the  aforesaid  judgment  of  the  Division  

Bench in the present appeal.  

17. We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  

the parties.   

18. It  is  submitted  by  Mr.  Shyam  Divan,  

learned senior counsel appearing for the  

Bank  that  the  Division  Bench  without  

adverting to the fact  situation held that  

there  has  been  a  breach  of  rules  of  

natural  justice,  which  has  vitiated  the  

entire  disciplinary  proceedings  from the  

stage  of  holding  of  the  departmental  

enquiry till the passing of the resolution  

by the Review Committee.  Learned Single  

Judge,  according  to  the  learned  senior  

counsel,  had  given  cogent  reasons  to  

justify  its  conclusions  on facts.   It  was  

rightly  observed  by  the  learned  Single  

20

Judge  that  respondent  never  raised the  

issue  of  any  prejudice  having  been  

caused  by  the  non-supply  of  the  

documents during the proceedings.  The  

Division  Bench also  failed  to  appreciate  

that all  material  documents relied upon  

by  the  Bank  had  been  supplied  to  or  

inspected  by  the  respondent.   The  

Division  Bench,  wrongly  relying  on  a  

judgment  of  this  Court  in  the  case  of  

State Bank of India and Ors. Vs. D.C.  

Aggarwal  and Anr.1 held  that  the  non-

supply  of  the  report  of  the  CVC  had  

vitiated the entire proceedings.  Learned  

senior  counsel  submitted  that  both  the  

grounds  on  which  the  judgment  of  the  

Division  Bench  is  based  are  factually  

non-existent  in this  case.   According to  

Mr.  Divan,  the  matter  herein  is  in  fact  

covered by the judgment of this Court in  

1  (1993) 1 SCC 13 21

the case of State Bank of India and Ors  

Vs. S. N. Goyal2  wherein the judgment in  

D.C.  Aggarwal’s  case (supra)  has  been  

distinguished.   Learned  senior  counsel  

had  also  relied  on  Disciplinary  

Authority-cum-Regional  Manager  and  

Ors Vs.  Nikunja  Bihari  Patnaik3 and  

Regional  Manager,  U.P.  SRTC,  Etwah  

and Ors Vs. Hoti Lal and Anr.4.  

19. On  the  other  hand,  Mr.  Kalyan  

Bandopadhyay,  learned  senior  counsel  

appearing  for  the  respondent  submitted  

that  there  has  been  a  clear  breach  of  

procedure prescribed under Rule 50 sub-

clause  xi  of  the  Service  Rules.   The  

Division  Bench  on  consideration  of  the  

aforesaid rule concluded that the learned  

Single  Judge  did  not  take  care  of  the  

2 (2008) 8 SCC 92 3 (1996) 9 SCC 69 4 (2003) 3 SCC 605

22

procedural  impropriety,  i.e.,  breach  of  

Rule  50  in  conducting  the  enquiry  

proceeding  against  the  respondent.  

Learned senior counsel further submitted  

that  the  procedural  requirements  under  

Rule  50  are  mandatory  in  nature  to  

ensure that there is a fair enquiry.  Mr.  

Bandopadhyay  further  submitted  that  

non-supply  of  the  recommendations  of  

the  CVC  being  contrary  to  the  

requirements  of  the  Service  Rules,  any  

further  proof  of  prejudice  was  not  

required.  Once the procedural rule had  

been  violated,  prejudice  would  be  

presumed.   In  support  of  his  

submissions,  Mr.  Bandopadhyay  relied  

on a number of judgments of this Court  

in the case of     D.C. Aggarwal’s case  

(supra),  Committee  of  Management,  

Kisan  Degree  College Vs.  Shambhu  

23

Saran Pandey and Ors.5,  State Bank of  

Patiala  and Ors Vs.  S.K.  Sharma6 and  

Nagarjuna  Construction  Company  

Limited Vs.  Government  of  Andhra  

Pradesh and Ors.7.   

20. Mr.  Bandopadhyay  submits  that  the  

Division Bench had passed a just order to  

remove an injustice.  The respondent had  

been  dismissed  from  service  arbitrarily.  

The entire disciplinary proceedings were  

vitiated  being  violative  of  principle  of  

natural justice.  According to the learned  

senior counsel, the appeal observes to be  

dismissed.   

21. We  have  considered  the  submissions  

made  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

parties.  Before we consider the judgment  

5 (1995) 1 SCC 404 6 (1996) 3 SCC 364 7 (2008) 16 SCC 276

24

of  the  Division  Bench,  it  would  be  

appropriate  to  notice  the  opening  

remarks  made  by  the  learned  Single  

Judge in its order dated 18th April, 2001.  

The  learned  Single  Judge  observed  as  

follows:-

“Very many points had been urged in the writ petition in  support  of  the  challenged  thrown to  the  charge  sheet,  proceedings  pursuant  thereto  and  the  orders  passed  therein,  but  at  the hearing the same was restricted to  denial of natural justice for not supplying the vigilance  report, which, according to the petitioner, was considered  while  taking  the  decision  for  completion  of  the  disciplinary proceedings.”  

From the above, it become obvious that even before the  

learned  Single  Judge,  the  respondent  had  made  no  

grievance about the non-supply of documents.  Also no  

further issue was raised about any prejudice having been  

caused to the respondent.  With regard to the non-supply  

of the recommendations of the CVC, the learned Single  

Judge made the following observations:-

“It is true that if in a disciplinary proceeding a decision is  taken on the basis of a recommendation or advice, not  

25

supplied to the delinquent, such a decision would be bad.  On the pleadings there is no dispute that in the case of  the Petitioner advice and recommendations were sent by  the  Central  Vigilance  Commission.   There  is  also  no  dispute that such advice and recommendations were not  communicated  to  the  Petitioner.   If  the  decisions  impugned in this writ  petition have been taken on the  basis of such advice and recommendations, the same are  equally bad.  It is not the case of the Petitioner that by  reason  of  any  application  rule  or  by  reason  of  usage,  custom or practice, the Authorities concerned, who have  decided the matters, are bound to take into account such  advice  or  recommendations  of  the  Central  Vigilance  Commission.   Therefore,  despite  such  advice  and  recommendations  having  been  given,  the  Authorities  concerned,  who  are  empowered  to  decide,  may  totally  ignore such advice and recommendations and if they so  ignore they will be well within their right to do so.  In the  instant  case  it  has  been  denied  that  such  advice  or  recommendations  were  taken note  of  or  considered  by  the  Authorities  concerned,  who  passed  the  impugned  orders.   The orders in question have been set out above.  From  that  it  does  not  appear  that  the  Authorities  concerned have in fact considered any of the said advices  or  recommendations  of  the  Central  Vigilance  Commission.   Merely  because  the  Central  Vigilance  Commission had given advice or recommendations, but  the same were not furnished to the Petitioner to give him  an opportunity to deal with the same, would not make  the decisions impugned in the instant case bad, unless it  is  shown  and  established  that  the  decisions  in  the  instant  case  are  influenced  by  such  advice  or  recommendations.   There  is  nothing  on  record  from  where it can be safely said that at or before making the  impugned decisions, any of the authorities concerned in  fact  looked  into  or  considered  such  advices  or  recommendations of the Central  Vigilance Commission.  In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that there  has been denial of natural justice in the instant case for  not supplying the subject Vigilance reports case for not  

26

supplying  the  subject  Vigilance  reports  or  advice  and  recommendations as the case may be.”   

22. The  aforesaid  observations  make  it  

abundantly  clear  that  the  

recommendations  of  the  CVC  were  not  

taken  into  consideration  by  the  

authorities concerned.  There was also no  

other material on the record to show that  

before  taking  the  impugned  decisions,  

any of the authorities concerned took into  

consideration  any  advice  or  

recommendations of the CVC.  It was also  

not even the case of the respondent that  

under  any  rule,  usage,  customs  or  

practice,  the authorities  concerned were  

bound to take into account such advice  

or  recommendations  of  the  CVC.   The  

authorities  concerned  would  be  within  

their right to totally ignore any advice or  

recommendations of the CVC, if they so  

27

chose.   The  learned  Single  Judge  also  

observed  that  in  case  of        D.C.  

Aggarwal’s case (supra),  the authorities  

had relied upon the recommendations of  

the CVC, which were not at all disclosed  

to  the  delinquent  officer.   On  the  fact  

situation in the present case, the learned  

Single  Judge  held  that  the  authorities  

concerned have not looked at the advice  

or  recommendations  of  the  CVC  before  

taking  any  of  the  impugned  decisions.  

The  aforesaid  judgment  was  

distinguishable as it did not apply in the  

facts of this case.   

23. The  Division  Bench,  in  our  opinion,  

erroneously  proceeded  to  presume  that  

there has been either any breach of the  

statutory  rules  or  violation  of  rules  of  

natural justice.  The Division Bench also  

28

failed to take into consideration that the  

issue with regard to the non-supply of the  

documents  listed  in  the  letter  

dated  3rd April,  1982  was  not  even  

canvassed  before  the  learned  Single  

Judge at  the  time of  arguments.   As is  

evident from the remarks of the learned  

Single  Judge  at  the  hearing  of  the  writ  

petition,  counsel  for  the  respondent  

restricted the challenge only to denial of  

natural  justice  for  not  supplying  the  

vigilance report.  This apart, the Division  

Bench  totally  ignored  the  fact  that  the  

respondent did not care to raise the issue  

of  non-supply  of  the  documents  during  

the  entire  course  of  the  enquiry  

proceedings.   He  also  totally  omitted  to  

raise  such an issue in the written brief  

containing his  defence arguments.   The  

Appellate Authority in its order dated 6th  

29

June, 1984 noticed that the respondent  

had  “failed  to  submit  his  list  of  

documents  and  witnesses  which  he  

wanted to produce for the purpose of his  

defence  within  the  date  stipulated  the  

Inquiring Authority and he also did not  

raise any objection during the course of  

enquiry.”    The Review Committee in its  

order                             dated 12 th  

November,  1987  upon  consideration  of  

the entire matter observed as follows:-

“The  Petitioner  has  contended  that  certain  documents  required by him were not made available to him by the  prosecution at the inquiry.  The records reveal,  in this  respect,  that  he  was  asked  to  submit  his  lists  of  documents and witnesses by the 31st March, 1982 and  that he had failed to do so.  The lists were in fact received  by  the  Presenting  Officer  on  the  28th May  1982,  far  beyond the stipulated time, and as such no action was  taken thereon.  However, the Committee is at a loss to  understand as to why the Petitioner did not press at the  Inquiry for the production of the requisite documents if  they were so vital  as to cause serious prejudice to his  defence as alleged.  The Petitioner’s accusation that the  Inquiry  Authority  refused  to  summon  all  the  defence  witnesses is also not acceptable for the same reason that  the  list  was  not  received  within  the  stipulated  period.  The  committee,  however,  observes  that  the  Inquiring  

30

Authority  had,  in  fact,  permitted  the  Petitioner  to  produce his witnesses for deposition.”

24. These observations indicate even though  

the  grievance  was  made  belatedly,  the  

same was duly considered by the highest  

authority  of  the  Bank.   Even  at  that  

stage, the respondent had failed to point  

out as to what prejudice had been caused  

to him during the course of the enquiry.  

In  such  circumstances,  the  Division  

Bench was wholly  unjustified  in  setting  

aside the entire disciplinary proceedings  

and the findings recorded by the learned  

Single Judge.  

25. In  our  opinion,  the  Division  Bench  has  

erroneously  relied  on  the  judgment  in  

D.C. Aggarwal’s case (supra).  As rightly  

observed by the learned Single Judge, in  

that  case  this  Court  considered  a  

31

situation  where  the  Disciplinary  

Authority  passed  an  elaborate  order  

regarding  findings  against  the  Charge  

Sheet Officer agreeing on each charge on  

which CVC had found against  him.   In  

these circumstances, this Court observed  

that:-

“The order is vitiated not because of mechanical exercise  of powers or for non-supply of the inquiry report but for  relying  and  acting  on  material  which  was  not  only  irrelevant but could not have been looked into.  Purpose  of supplying document is to contest its veracity or give  explanation.  Effect of non-supply of the report of Inquiry  Officer before imposition of punishment need not be gone  into nor it is necessary to consider validity of sub-rule (5).  But  non-supply  of  CVC  recommendation  which  was  prepared  behind  the  back  of  respondent  without  his  participation, and one does not know on what material  which was not only sent to the disciplinary authority but  was  examined and relied  on,  was certainly  violative  of  procedural  safeguard  and  contrary  to  fair  and  just  inquiry.”

These observations would not be applicable in the facts of  

the  present  case  as  the  Disciplinary  Authority  did  not  

take  into  consideration  any  recommendations  of  the  

CVC.  The judgment was, therefore, rightly distinguished  

by the learned Single Judge.

32

26. We  may  now  consider  the  other  

judgments  relied  upon  by  Mr.  

Bandopadhyay.   In  the  case  of  Kisan  

Degree  College  (supra),  this  Court  

noticed  that  the  respondent  was  

dismissed from service on the basis of an  

Enquiry  Report.   In  that  case,  the  

respondent had at the earliest sought for  

inspection  of  the  documents.   He  was,  

however, told to inspect the same at the  

time of final arguments in the enquiry.  It  

was,  therefore,  held  that  the  enquiry  

proceeding had been conducted in breach  

of rule of natural justice.  The aforesaid  

judgment would have no relevance in the  

facts  of  this  case.   In  the  case  of  

S.K.  Sharma  (supra),  this  Court  held  

that violation of any and every procedural  

provision can not be said to automatically  

33

vitiate the enquiry held or order passed.  

Except  in  cases  falling  under  –  “no  

notice”,  “no  opportunity”  and  “no  

hearing”  categories,  the  complaint  of  

violation  of  procedural  provision  should  

be  examined  from  the  point  of  view  of  

prejudice,  viz.,  whether  such  violation  

has  prejudiced  the  delinquent  

officer/employee  in  defending  himself  

properly  and effectively.   In the  present  

case,  we  have  noticed  above  that  the  

respondent did not even care to submit  

the  list  of  documents  within  the  

stipulated time.  Further, he did not even  

care  to  specify  the  relevance  of  the  

documents sought to be requisitioned. In  

our opinion, the appellant Bank has not  

transgressed  any  of  the  principles  laid  

down  in  the  aforesaid  judgment  whilst  

conducting  and  concluding  the  

34

departmental  proceedings  against  the  

respondent.  Therefore,  the  aforesaid  

observations in  S.K. Sharma’s  case are  

of no avail to the respondent.  In the case  

of  Nagarjuna  Construction  Company  

Limited (supra),  this Court observed as  

follows:-

“The basic principles of natural justice seem to have been  disregarded by the State government while revising the  order.  It acted on materials which were not supplied to  the appellants.  Accordingly, the High Court for the first  time made reference to the report/inspection notes which  were not even referred to by the State Government while  exercising revisional power.”          

These observations are of no relevance in the facts and  

circumstances  of  the  present  case.   The  respondent  

herein is merely trying to make capital of his own lapse  

in not submitting the list of documents in time and also  

not stating the relevance of the documents required to be  

produced.  By now, the legal position is well settled and  

defined.  It was incumbent on the respondent to plead  

and prove the prejudice caused by the non-supply of the  

35

documents.  The respondent has failed to place on record  

any facts or material to prove what prejudice has been  

caused to him.  

27. At  this  stage,  it  would  be  relevant  to  make  a  

reference to certain observations made by this Court in  

the  case  of  Haryana Financial  Corporation  and Anr.  

Vs. Kailash Chandra Ahuja8, which are as under:-      

“From the ratio laid down in B. Karunakar1 it is explicitly  clear that the doctrine of natural justice requires supply  of a copy of the inquiry officer’s report to the delinquent if  such  inquiry  officer  is  other  than  the  disciplinary  authority. It is also clear that non-supply of report of the  inquiry officer is in the breach of natural justice. But it is  equally clear that failure to supply a report of the inquiry  officer to the delinquent employee would not ipso facto  result  in  the  proceedings being declared null  and void  and the order of punishment non est and ineffective. It is  for the delinquent employee to plead and prove that non- supply of such report had caused prejudice and resulted  in miscarriage of  justice.  If  he is  unable to satisfy  the  court  on  that  point,  the  order  of  punishment  cannot  automatically be set aside.”

28.We  may  also  notice  here  

that  there  is  not  much  

substance  in  the  

8 (2008) 9 SCC 31 36

submission  of  Mr.  

Bandopadhyay  that  mere  

breach of Rule 50(11) would  

give  rise  to  a  presumption  

of  prejudice  having  been  

caused  to  the  respondent.  

The  aforesaid  rule  is  as  

under:-

“(x) (a) the  inquiring  authority  shall  where  the  employee  does  not  admit  all  or  any  of  the  articles  of  charge  furnish  to  such  employee  a  list  of  documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom,  the articles of charge are proposed to be proved.  

(b) The  Inquiring  Authority  shall  also  record  an  order  that  the  employee  may  for  the  purpose of preparing his defence:

I. inspect  and take  notes  of  the  documents listed within five days of the order or within  such further time not exceeding five days as the Inquiring  Authority may allow:

II. submit a list of documents and  witnesses that he wants for inquiry:

III. be  supplied  with  copies  of  statements of witnesses, if any, recorded earlier and the  Inquiring Authority  shall  furnish such copies  not  later  than  three  days  before  the  commencement  of  the  examination of the witnesses by the Inquiring Authority.  

IV. give a notice within ten days of  the order or within such further time not exceeding ten  days as the Inquiry Authority may allow for the discovery  or production of the documents referred to at (II) above.  

37

Note:   The  relevancy  of  the  documents and the examination of the witnesses referred  to at (II) above shall be given by the employee concerned.

(xi) the Inquiry Authority shall, on  receipt of the notice for the discovery of production of the  documents,  forward  the  same or  copies  thereof  to  the  authority in whose custody or possession the documents  are  kept  with  a  requisition  for  the  production  of  the  documents on such date as may be specified.”

A perusal of the note under Clause 4 of the aforesaid rule  

would make it obvious that the respondent was not only  

to submit a list of documents and witnesses but was also  

required to state the relevancy of the documents and the  

examination of  the  witnesses.   The respondent  himself  

having  not  complied  with  the  procedural  requirements  

can  hardly  complain  that  a  breach  of  the  procedural  

requirements under Clause xi would ipso facto result in  

rendering the enquiry null and void.  In any event, since  

the  Disciplinary  Authority  has  not  relied  on  any  

recommendations  of  the  CVC and  the  respondent  has  

failed  to  plead  or  prove  any  prejudice  having  been  

caused, the disciplinary proceedings can not be said to  

be vitiated.  

38

29. In  our  opinion,  the  aforesaid  observations  of  this  

Court are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances  

of this case.  In our opinion, the respondent has failed to  

prove  any  prejudice  caused  which  has  resulted  in  

miscarriage of justice.  In our opinion, the judgment of  

the  Division Bench can not  be sustained in  law.   The  

appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment of  

the Division Bench is set aside and the judgment of the  

learned Single Judge is restored.

……………………………..J. [B.Sudershan Reddy]

……………………………..J. [Surinder Singh Nijjar]

New Delhi; January 11, 2011.     

39