1. Service termination — Disciplinary authority imposes penalty — High Court holds order unsustainable but grants monetary relief instead of reinstatement. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2001 Supreme(SC) 542
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N.Agrawal : G.B.Pattanaik : S.N.Phukan
G.M.(Personnel Wing) , Canara Bank
Versus
M.Raja Rao
Case No. : 1361 of 1999
Date of Decision : 3/22/01
Advocates Appeared: Jois Rama : Sanghi
A Disciplinary Authority need not provide detailed reasons for agreeing with an Enquiring Officer's findings. Similarly, an Appellate Authority's order remains valid if it considers the totality of circumstances after a hearing, even if not every individual contention is specifically answered.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Departmental Inquiry - Disciplinary Authority's agreement with Enquiring Officer's findings - When a Disciplinary Authority agrees with the findings and conclusions of the Enquiring Authority, it is not necessary in law to give any detailed reasons as to why it intends to agree with those findings. (Para 4)
(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - Use of extraneous materials - If a Disciplinary Authority considers materials other than those produced before the Enquiring Officer, the delinquent must be given notice thereof; however, the mere use of expressions such as "other relevant factors" in an order does not necessarily indicate consideration of extraneous materials. (Para 4)
(C) Appellate Authority - Reasoned order - Requirement to address contentions - An order of the Appellate Authority is not vitiated merely because every individual contention raised in an appeal has not been specifically dealt with, provided the Authority afforded an opportunity of hearing, considered the contentions, and took the totality of circumstances into account. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
A bank manager was removed from service following a departmental inquiry for dereliction of duties. The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the Enquiring Officer's findings and imposed the penalty of removal. Following the dismissal of an appeal by the Appellate Authority, the High Court set aside the termination, ruling that the Disciplinary Authority had failed to apply its mind and the Appellate Authority had not considered the appeal in accordance with regulations.
Findings of Court:
The court found no infirmity in the Disciplinary Authority's order, stating that detailed reasons are not required when agreeing with an Enquiring Officer. It further found that the Appellate Authority had correctly considered the totality of the circumstances after providing a hearing, and thus the appellate order was not vitiated.
Issues: Whether the Disciplinary Authority is legally required to provide detailed reasons when agreeing with an Enquiring Officer's findings, and whether an Appellate Authority's failure to answer every specific contention renders a reasoned order unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: A Disciplinary Authority is not required to provide detailed reasons for concurring with the findings of an Enquiring Officer. A reasoned order by an Appellate Authority is valid if a hearing was provided and the Authority considered the overall circumstances and arguments, even if not every contention was individually addressed.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Disciplinary authority need not give reasons when agreeing with inquiry officer; appellate authority considered contentions adequately despite not addressing each point. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Disciplinary authority agreeing with inquiry officer need not give detailed reasons; no extraneous material considered; appellate authority gave reasoned order. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
4. When disciplinary authority agrees with enquiry authority, no detailed reasons required; appellant authority's order valid if opportunity and totality considered. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
5. Appeal allowed — impugned judgment set aside — writ petition dismissed — no order as to costs. (Para 6 )
6. Must a disciplinary authority give detailed reasons when agreeing with the enquiry officer's findings?
No. When the disciplinary authority agrees with the enquiry officer's findings and conclusions, it is not required in law to provide detailed reasons. (Para 4 )
7. Does use of the phrase 'other relevant factors' in a disciplinary order indicate consideration of extraneous material?
No. Mere use of the phrase 'other relevant factors' does not prove that the disciplinary authority considered extraneous materials not produced before the enquiry officer. (Para 4 )
8. Is an appellate authority's order vitiated if it does not address every contention raised by the appellant?
No. An appellate authority's order is not invalid merely because it does not deal with every contention, provided it afforded a hearing, considered the contentions, and gave a reasoned order. (Para 5 , 6 )
(1) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court. By the impugned judgment the Division Bench of High Court came to hold that the order of termination of the respondent after finding him guilty of charges levelled against him is unsustainable. But instead of directing reinstatement, the Division Bench directed that the respondent would be paid his salary from the date of dismissal on September 2, 1984 till the date of his enrolment as an advocate, i. e., October 12, 1988.
(2) THE respondent was working as a Manager of Canara Bank and while he was so working in the year 1981-82, a departmental inquiry was instituted against him under the provisions of the Canara Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, a set of charges was levelled against him and the Enquiring Officer (EO), came to hold that the charges against the delinquent have been proved. On the basis of the aforesaid findings of the EO in his report, the Disciplinary Authority agreed with the conclusion and imposed the penalty of removal from service. In accordance with the provisions contained in the regulation, copy of the inquiry report was also furnished to the delinquent to enable him to prefer an effective appeal before the Appellate Authority. The delinquent did prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority finally dismissed that appeal by order dated May 23, 1985. The delinquent then filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court which was heard and disposed of by a learned single Judge. The learned single Judge did not find any infirmity with the disciplinary proceeding requiring interference by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition thus having been dismissed the delinquent preferred an appeal to the Division Bench. The Division Bench by the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that even though the Disciplinary Authority while agreeing with the report of the EO is not required to give any reasons, but in the case in hand a bare look at the order of the Disciplinary Authority would indicate that there was no application of mind to the relevant materials by the Disciplinary Authority and as such the order awarding the punishment is vitiated. The Division Bench further held that even the Appellate Authority did not consider the appeal of the delinquent in accordance with Regulation 17 and as such the appellate order also was vitiated. With these conclusions the Division Bench having held the order of termination to be bad but having granted the relief as already stated, the Bank has come up in appeal. Mr. Sanghi, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Bank, fairly stated that though the Bank might not have contested the order in view of the fact that the order of reinstatement has not been directed, but on principle the impugned judgment being erroneous, on the face of it, the Bank was obliged to file the appeal and therefore contested the conclusions arrived at by the Division Bench. He contended that there is no requirement of law that when the Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings and conclusions of the Enquiring Authority he is still required to give reasons in writing therefor and as such the ultimate conclusion of the Division Bench that there was no application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority is a conclusion based on no materials and as such cannot be sustained. He further contended that the so-called infirmity found by the Division Bench with regard to the Appellate Authority is also unsustainable inasmuch as the Appellate Authority has given a personal hearing to the delinquent and has gone into the contentions raised and thereafter taking a totality of all the circumstances, did not find it necessary to interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the Enquiring Authority and affirmed by the Disciplinary Authority and therefore did not interfere wi
