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