Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
18-8-1967
M. HIDAYATULLAH AND C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.
The Central Bank of India Ltd., Appellant
Versus
Karunamoy Banerjee. Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 440 of 1966,
D/- 18-8-1967
Advocates Appeared
Mr. H. R. Gokhale, Senior Advocate, (M/s. C. L. Chopra and P. C. Bhartari, Advocates, and Mr. O. C. Mathur, Advocate of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, and Co., with him), for Appellant; Mr. Janardan Sharma. Advocate, for Respondent.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - Section 33(2)(b) - Domestic enquiry - Principles of natural justice - Examination of workman in first instance - Admission of guilt by workman - Effect.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, an Assistant Accountant in the appellant Bank, was charged with allowing overdrafts without obtaining the sanction of the appropriate authorities. He admitted his guilt in his replies to the chargesheet and during the domestic enquiry. The Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry was not fair and that the principles of natural justice had been violated, as the respondent was examined in the first instance and was not allowed to cross-examine witnesses. The Bank appealed to the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the Labour Court's findings were erroneous. The respondent had admitted his guilt at all stages, and therefore there was no need for the management to lead evidence to prove the allegations against him. The examination of the respondent in the first instance was not a violation of the principles of natural justice, as he was given an opportunity to explain his conduct and to adduce any evidence in mitigation. The respondent was also given an opportunity to cross-examine the other witnesses examined during the enquiry.
Issues: Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the Bank against the respondent was fair and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that the principles of natural justice require that the workman concerned must be informed clearly of the charges levelled against him; witnesses should be normally examined in the presence of the employee, in respect of the charges; if statements, taken previously and given by witnesses, are relied on, they should be made available to the workman concerned; the workman should be given a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses; he should be given a fair opportunity to examine witnesses including himself in support of his defence; and the Enquiry Officer should record his findings based upon the evidence so adduced. However, if the workman admits his guilt, there is no need for the management to lead evidence to prove the allegations against him. In such a case, it is open to the management to examine the workman himself, even in the first instance, so as to enable him to offer any explanation for his conduct, or to place before the management any circumstances which will go to mitigate the gravity of the offence.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Labour Court. The Bank was granted approval for the action taken against the respondent.
Judgement
VAIDIALINGAM, J. : This appeal, by special leave, by the appellant Bank, is directed against the order, dated May 13, 1964, of the Central Labour Court, Dhanbad, rejecting as, application, filed by the Bank, under Section 33 (2) (b), of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XIV of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act), and declining to grant approval of the action taken, by the Bank, by way of discharging the respondent-workman, from the Bank s services.
2. The respondent was, at the material time, the Assistant Accountant, at the main Office of the Bank, at Calcutta. In view of certain serious irregularities noticed by the Bank, in respect of the work of the respondent in the Current Accounts Department and, in particular, in current account ledgers Nos. 4 and 6, by order dated March 8, 1961, the respondent was suspended, with immediate effect. He was also informed that the charges against him would be communicated, is due course.
3. By a further communication, dated March 13/14, 1961, the respondent was required to offer his explanation in respect of four allegations made in the said communication. The main allegations were that, in respect of ledger accounts Nos. 4 and 6, standing in the names of Messrs. Commercial Bureau and Messrs. Evergreen Paper Syndicate and Messrs. Gokul Chand Radha ram, respectively, overdrafts had been allowed, by the respondent, from time to time, without obtaining the sanction of the authorities competent to allow overdrafts. The other allegations were to the effect that the respondent, who was charged with the duty of supervising both these ledgers, did not bring to the notice of the authorities the said irregularities, that must have come to his knowledge, and that the pass book of ledger No. 4 was missing. The respondent sent a reply, dated March 17, 1961, wherein he has admitted that in the course of discharge of his routine duties and responsibilities in good faith and honestly, he had granted overdrafts to the parties referred to, by the Bank, temporarily, in excess of their credits or limits, without reference to the higher authorities. He also admitted that it was a blunder on his part and that he should not have done so. He offered an explanation to the effect that he was led to believe in the credit-worthiness of the individuals, because of their long association with the Bank and also because of the fact that, on prior occasions, overdrafts had been granted to them, in excess of permissible limits. He also stated that the Bank had not been put to any financial loss because of his having granted the overdrafts; but, he again admitted his negligence, in not strictly abiding by the Bank s rules, when he made the overdrafts. He, however, added that his conduct had always been guided by good faith and honesty. This was the answer, regarding the main allegations, contained in the Bank s letter dated March 13/l4 1961. He also stated, regarding the other minor allegations that it was not his duty to report about the debit balances, which was the function of the ledger-keeper, and that he was not also responsible for the loss of the pass book, of ledger No. 4. He wound up his explanation by stating that his conduct, in making the overdrafts, without obtaining the sanction of the higher authorities, was an omission which had been, unfortunately, committed by him, and he expressed regret for the same and requested the management to excuse him, accepting his explanation.
4. The appellant Bank was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the respondent, and communicated a chargesheet, on June 3, 1961. The main charges related to the overdrafts, paid by the respondent, in ledger Nos. 4 and 6, without obtaining the permission of the proper sanctioning authority. The Bank also informed the respondent that he would be given a further opportunity to explain his conduct, in relation to those matters, and defend himself in the enquiry which would be held by the Agent of the Bank, on June 20, 1961
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
