SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 686

B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, K.S.PARIPOORNAN
State Bank Of Patiala – Appellant
Versus
S. K. Sharma – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

What is the test of prejudice or fair hearing in disciplinary proceedings when procedural provisions are violated? What is the effect of non-furnishing copies of witness statements or documents on the validity of a disciplinary enquiry and punishment? When should substantial compliance vs. strict compliance apply to procedural provisions in disciplinary enquiries?

Key Points: - Point 1 (!) - Point 2 (!) - Point 3 (!) - Point 4 (!) - Point 5 (!) - Point 6 (!) - Point 7 (!) - Point 8 (!) - Point 9 (!) - Point 10 (!)

What is the test of prejudice or fair hearing in disciplinary proceedings when procedural provisions are violated?

What is the effect of non-furnishing copies of witness statements or documents on the validity of a disciplinary enquiry and punishment?

When should substantial compliance vs. strict compliance apply to procedural provisions in disciplinary enquiries?


JUDGMENT

B.P. Jeevan Reddy J.-Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal prefered against the judgment and decree of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, dismissing the second appeal filed by the appellant raises certain basic questions concerning natural justice in the context of disciplinary proceedings.

3. A disciplinary enquiry was held against the respondent in respect of two charges. They are :

"Charge No. 1

That he did not deposit the sum of Rs.10,000/- handed over to him by Sh.Balwant Singh in December 1985, in the crop loan account of Sh. Jarnail Singh S/o Sh. Lahra Singh. Later on the entire amount of Rs. 11,517=50 outstanding in the account was deposited by. someone on the 22nd March 1986 under the signature of Sh. Balwant Singh. He thus utilised the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for approximately 3 months for his own advantage.

Charge No. II

That he, in contravention of Regulation 50(4) of the State Bank of Patiala (Officers ) Service Regulations 1979, issued an undated letter in his own handwriting addressed to the Tehsildar,Bhatinda for revocation of Mutation on the land mortgaged to the Bank even when the crop loan account of Shri Jarnail Singh was not adjusted. He
















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top