Key Points: - The court held that the principles of natural justice cannot render in-house proceedings unworkable. (!) - The appeal allowed; Tribunal and High Court findings that the enquiry was defective were set aside. (!) (!) - The evidence showed the respondent admitted guilt multiple times and the enquiry proceeded with ex parte examination of a management witness. (!) (!) - The Tribunal’s reasons relying on adjournment applications and requirement of rebuttal evidence were rejected as untenable. (!) (!) - The Supreme Court emphasized expeditious and fair conduct of internal disciplinary proceedings, cautioning against overextending natural justice. (!) - The respondent deposited Rs.14,000 to make good defalcation and had admitted guilt in writing and orally. (!) (!) - The enquiry led to dismissal by the management authority, which was later contested in tribunals. (!) (!) - The High Court’s dismissal of writ petition and the Tribunal’s reinstatement order were overturned. (!) (!) - The court noted the danger of delays and undue leniency in internal investigations if natural justice is misapplied. (!) - The final judgment sets aside the Tribunal’s findings and the High Court’s award, upholding the appeal. (!)

How to determine whether principles of natural justice can be stretched to render in-house proceedings unworkable?

What is the appropriate standard of review when a domestic enquiry in a bank's disciplinary action is challenged for alleged violation of natural justice?

What are the consequences when an enquiry officer conducts proceedings ex parte or without adequate opportunity to the respondent?