IMPORTANT POINT
Regulation 6(18) of Canara Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 has not been correctly interpreted by High Court in this case.

Headnote:(i) Canara Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 Regulation 6(18) and 6(21)-Disciplinary enquiry-Disputed document-Single Judge holding that inquiry officer had given an opportunity to presenting officer to file his written briefs and similar opportunity ought to have been given to the employee and thus there has been violation of principles of natural justice-Affirmed by D.B.-Whether regulation 6(18) have been correctly interpreted by the High Court? (No).
       Held : A bare reading of sub-regulation (18) of Regulation 6 makes the position clear that there is no requirement of the employee being granted an opportunity to file written briefs after the Presenting Officer files written briefs. On the contrary, as the provisions postulate, after completion of production of evidence two options are open to the Inquiry Officer. It may hear the Presenting Officer appointed and the concerned employee or in the alternative permit them to file written briefs within 15 days of the date of completion of the production of evidence if they so desire. The written briefs are relatable to the cases of the party concerned; otherwise the expression respective case would be meaningless. In other words, the written briefs must contain what his case is. There is no requirement of filing written briefs one after the other. It is not required that one party has to wait till filing of written briefs by the other. The expression "respectively", means belonging or relating separately to each of several people. It is a word of severance. It is to be further noted that in the appeal before the Appellate Authority findings of the Inquiry Officer were challenged and, therefore, the question of any prejudice does not arise. Since employee had the opportunity to meet the stand of the Bank, it was to his advantage, and opportunity for personal hearing was also granted, though Regulation 6(18) does not even speak to grant such an opportunity. Keeping in view what was observed in B. Karunakara s case (supra) there was no question of violation of principles of natural justice. On that score the conclusion arrived at by the Learned Single Judge and the Division Bench that there was violation of principles of natural justice cannot be maintained. (Paras 9 to 11)
       (ii) Order of dismissal-Based on forged documents-High Court disposing the case on violation of principles of natural justice-Said finding of High Court found erroneous-Whether merits of the case be considered by direction regarding examination of the documents by the expert as ordered by learned Single Judge and then D.B. to hear the matter? (Yes)- Appeal allowed accordingly.
       Held : The inevitable result is that the judgment of the Division Bench confirming that of the Learned Single Judge has to be quashed so far as it relates to the question of violation of principles of natural justice. But that is not the end of the matter. There was no consideration of the merits of the case as noted above. It would be in the fitness of things to direct examination of the documents by the expert in terms of Learned Single Judge s order. The employee shall file originals of the documents on which he relies upon, of which copies were placed before the High Court. The appellate-Bank shall file originals of the documents on which reliance was placed, if not already done. If the government expert is of the view that documents produced by the employee are forged/fabricated or not authentic the order of dismissal shall stand. If, however, the report of the expert is that the documents produced by the employee are genuine, the order of dismissal has to be vacated. In case the originals, as directed above, are not filed by the employee or the Bank, then the High Court shall pass necessary orders, upholding the order of dismissal or setting aside the order of dismissal, as the case may be. No other point shall be considered by the High Court. The matter shall be heard by the Division Bench by restoration of the writ appeal. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated. (Paras 28 and 29)
       (iii) Principles of National Justice and "useless formality theory" in Service Jurisprudence (see paras 12 to 27).

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The Supreme Court held that Regulation 6(18) of the Canara Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 does not mandate that an employee be granted an opportunity to file written briefs after the Presenting Officer has filed theirs; both parties may file their briefs within 15 days of the completion of evidence production if they so desire. (!)
The expression "respectively" in the regulation is interpreted as a word of severance, meaning the written briefs belong to the respective cases of the parties involved and there is no requirement for one party to wait for the other's submission. (!)
Since the employee had the opportunity to meet the Bank's stand and was granted a personal hearing during the appeal before the Appellate Authority, there was no violation of the principles of natural justice regarding the failure to file written briefs sequentially. (!)
The Court clarified that the principles of natural justice are not codified canons but are principles ingrained in the conscience of man, focusing on substance rather than narrow technicalities. (!)
The first and foremost principle of natural justice is audi alteram partem (hear the other side), which requires precise notice and adequate time for representation. (!)
The Court discussed the "useless formality theory," noting that while courts have discretion to refuse relief if following natural justice would not change the outcome, they should not mechanically set aside orders without assessing prejudice. (!)
In cases where a report is not furnished to a delinquent employee, the Court must determine if the non-supply would have made a difference to the ultimate findings before setting aside the punishment order. (!)
The appeal was allowed to the extent that the High Court's finding of violation of natural justice was quashed, and the matter was remanded to the High Court to examine the disputed documents by a government expert to determine their authenticity. (!)
If the expert report deems the documents produced by the employee as forged or not authentic, the order of dismissal shall stand; if deemed genuine, the order of dismissal must be vacated. (!)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Scope and ambit of Regulation 6(18) and 6(21) of the Canara Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations ) fall for determination in this appeal.

3. Filtering out unnecessary details, the factual background relevant for adjudication for the present dispute is as follows:-

Four charge-sheets dated 12-12-1987, 5-11-1987, 23.3.1989 and 25-5-1989 were issued to respondent No. 1 Debasis Das (hereinafter referred to as the employee ) by the functionaries of the Canara Bank, a Government of India undertaking. Disciplinary proceedings were commenced. Charge-sheet dated 5-11-1987 related to the non-vacation of residential quarter by the employee after expiry of the lease period. On completion of inquiry in respect of the said charge, disciplinary authority directed dismissal of the employee from the services of the Bank by order dated 28-8-1989. The disciplinary authority thereafter passed an order on 13-9-1989 which is the bone of contention of the parties. Details of the said order shall be dealt with infra and after the recital of the factual position is completed. Order of dismissal was challenged by the employee before the Calcutta High Court. By order dated 14-12-1990 in writ petition Co. No. 10514(W)/1989, the order of dismissal was set aside. Employee was reinstated on 28-1-1991. After reinstatement three office orders were issued to proceed with the inquiries relating to the other three charge-sheets. According to the employer-Bank the proceedings were earlier suspended. Enquiry Officers and Presiding Officers were appointed to those proceedings. By letter dated 6-4-1991 employee requested to drop the proceedings in the said charge-sheets and to exonerate him from the charges contained. On 23-4-1991 he was advised by the authority to attend the inquiry proceedings. On 30-9-1991 list of the documents along with the copies were sent to the employee. On 24-11-1992 employee for the first time took the stand that he had been exonerated of the charges contained in the three charge-sheets and all proceedings in connection therewith had been dropped. Along with his letter, a photocopy purporting to be a copy of letter dated 13-9-1989 written by one Shri K.V. Nayak, officer of the Bank was sent. According to the appellant the enclosure to employee s letter dated 24-11-1992 was a fabricated document and contents of the actual letter dated 13-9-1989 sent by the Bank had been interpolated. Treating the letter to be a fabricated document further charge-sheet dated 21-5-1994 was issued where it was stated that during the progress of the pending three enquiries employee had produced certain forged/fabricated documents before the disciplinary authority and thus constituted misconduct. The charge-sheet along with statement of imputation were served on the employee. On 7-6-1994 employee wrote to the Acting Dy. General Manager that the proceedings dated 13-9-1989 received by him from the Bank was signed by the Dy. General Manager and not by the Acting General Manager or Shri K.V. Nayak as alleged or at all. Enquiry into the charge-sheet was conducted, the documents relied upon by the management were produced and the office copy of the letter issued under the signature of Mr. K.V. Nayak, Acting General Manager was produced. Certain witnesses were examined. During the inquiry employee was asked to produce the original letter claimed to have been received by him, but his stand was that he did not desire to part custody of the defence documents since the same are very much required at a later stage. On 1-4-1995 the minutes were accordingly recorded. The employee on that date made a statement that he wanted to make further submissions in his written briefs which he would be submitting in terms of Rule 6(18) and he was closing his evidence/defence. The Presenting Officer was directed by the Inquiry Officer to submit his written briefs within 10 days i.e. before 12-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 324

IMPORTANT POINTRegulation 6(18) of Canara Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 has not been correctly interpreted by High Court in this case.

Cases Referred (8)

IMPORTANT POINT
Regulation 6(18) of Canara Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 has not been correctly interpreted by High Court in this case.