2006 Supreme(SC) 79

2006(1) Supreme 582
Supreme Court of India
(From Karnataka High Court)
H.K. Sema & Dr. A.R. Lakshmanan, JJ.
Syndicate Bank & Ors. —Appellants
versus
Venkatesh Gururao Kurati —Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1766 of 2005
Decided on 31-1-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate, V. Sudeer, MBRS Raju, Ms. S. Sunita, S. Sachin, Ms. M. Sailaja, Balaji Srinivasan and S. Srinivasan, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Naveen R. Nath, Ms. Lalit Mohini Bhat, Ms. Anitha Shenoy and Ms. Hetu Arora, Advocates.

Important point
Non supply of documents, which did not form part of chargesheet and were not relied upon by the prosecution did not prejudice the delinquent officer resulting in vitiating the enquiry proceedings.

Headnote:Service Law—Syndicate Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976—Regulation 6—Removal from banking service—Respondent was working as Manager of appellant’s bank—Imputations of misconduct—Charges that during the period of 30-12-1976 and 22-7-1981, respondent in collusion with certain staff members got necessary documents signed and arranged loans in the name of poor illiterate villagers under the Integrated Rural Development Program and misappropriated proceeds of such loans—Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and giving an opportunity to respondent, submitted its report finding the respondent guilty of charges proved—Disciplinary Authority accepted report of Enquiry Officer and removed respondent from service of bank with immediate effect—Writ petition filed by respondent challenging his removal from service—Single Judge of the High Court converted order of removal from service into compulsory retirement considering that he was removed from service on 29-7-1989, two days before the date on which respondent would have attained the superannuation age in the normal course—Respondent had served appellant’s bank for more than 33 years—Whether this can be considered as a ground for converting order of removal from service into compulsory retirement—(No)—Whether non supply of documents, which did not form part of chargesheet and were not relied upon by the prosecution prejudice the delinquent officer resulting in vitiating the enquiry proceedings—(No).

       Held : In our view, this is no ground for converting the order of removal from service into compulsorily retirement. On the question of punishment being disproportionate to the charges framed and proved, we are of the view that the charges framed and proved are grievous in nature, which would normally attract removal from service, if such charges were proved. We are also of the view that sentiments and compassion have no role to play in such a situation when the gravity of misconduct such as this has been found well proved against the respondent. (Para 5)

       It was the specific case of the appellants that the documents sought by the delinquent officer which were relevant for the purpose of enquiry and which were part of the charges were supplied to the delinquent officer, but the documents which were not supplied to the delinquent officer were those on which the prosecution either did not rely or which did not form part of the charges. (Para 11)

       The High Court’s finding, in our view, is perverse. The High Court having come to the conclusion that the documents sought by the respondent are not the basis for framing the charges nor those on which the Disciplinary Authority placed any reliance to prove the charges against the delinquent officer held that non-supply of those documents sought by the delinquent officer prejudiced his case and resulted in vitiating the proceedings. (Para 13)

       Apart, from this the delinquent officer did not deny that the prosecution relied upon 218 documents and also 24 witnesses and the delinquent officer had an opportunity to cross examine them and also examine the documents on basis of which the witnesses were cross-examined in the course of enquiry. The Enquiry Officer as stated earlier submitted a detailed report in which the delinquent officer did not deny at all, either by oral or written arguments, that he did not receive the cash from the cashier which was meant for the loanee. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently urged that although the documents may not form part of the charges or be relied upon by the prosecution in the course of enquiry, denial of the same would prejudice the delinquent’s case because denial of contemporary documents deprive the right of the delinquent to set up an effective defence. We are unable to countenance such submissions at all, that the documents which do not form part of the charges or are relied upon by the prosecution during the course of enquiry, non-supply of which would cause any prejudice to the delinquent officer. (Para 15)

       In our view, non-supply of documents on which the Enquiry Officer does not rely during the course of enquiry does not create any prejudice to the delinquent. It is only those documents, which are relied upon by the Enquiry Officer to arrive at his conclusion, the non-supply of which would cause prejudice being violative of principles of natural justice. Even then, the non-supply of those documents prejudice the case of delinquent officer must be established by the delinquent officer. It is well settled law that the doctrine of principles of natural justice are not embodied rules. It cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To sustain the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice, one must establish that prejudice has been caused to him for non-observance of principles of natural justice. (Para 18)