Back
2011 (3) Supreme 130
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Aftab Alam and R.M. Lodha, JJ.
S.B.I. — Appellant
versus
Hemant Kumar — Respondent
Civil Appeal No.2957 of 2011
[Arising out of Slp (Civil) No.18301 of 2010]
Decided on : 6-4-2011
Facts of the case:
(a) The respondent worked in the appellant-bank as Cashier-cum-Clerk.
(b) In January, 1994 it was discovered that the respondent had been indulging in misappropriation of money by making fictitious entries and manipulations in the bank’s ledgers. The respondent not only admitted his guilt in writing but also deposited the amount of Rs.14,000/- to make good the amount earlier defalcated by him.
(c) He was given a chargesheet detailing his various acts of omission and commission to which he did not give any reply.
(d) He did not participate in the enquiry on three dates and the enquiry officer examined the management witness ex parte.
(e) After giving opportunity of personal hearing, the respondent was dismissed.
(f) The Tribunal held the enquiry defective and the High Court affirmed it.
Finding of the Court:
Tribunal’s findings are wholly unreasonable and perverse and fit to be set aside.
Result : Appeal allowed.
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. (!)
JUDGMENT
Aftab Alam, J. —
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated August 8, 2008 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant before it and affirmed the award dated November 6, 1998 made by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Pandu Nagar, Kanpur, directing reinstatement of the respondent in the service of the appellant-bank with full back-wages.
4. The respondent worked in the appellant-bank as Cashier-cum-Clerk. In January, 1994 it was discovered that the respondent had been indulging in misappropriation of money by making fictitious entries and manipulations in the bank’s ledgers. On his malfeasance coming to light, the respondent not only admitted his guilt in writing vide memo dated March 3, 1994 but also deposited the amount of Rs.14,000/- to make good the amount earlier defalcated by him. He was given a chargesheet detailing his various acts of omission and commission to which he did not give any reply. Nevertheless, before the Enquiry Officer in course of the preliminary enquiry he expressed the intent to defend himself in the enquiry. The enquiry was first fixed on November 15, 1994 but on that date the respondent did not appear without giving any intimation to the Enquiry Officer. Due to his non-appearance the enquiry was adjourned to November 28, 1994. On that date, once again, he did not come to participate in the enquiry proceedings but sent a request for adjournment on the ground that his mother-in-law was seriously ill at Agra. The enquiry was once again adjourned and it was fixed for December 14, 1994. He was intimated about the next date fixed in the enquiry through registered post as well as hand delivery letters dated November 15, 1994 and November 28, 1994 respectively.
5. On December 14, 1994 the respondent was once again absent and there was no intimation from him. In those circumstances and having regard to the fact that the witness intended to be examined by the management in support of the charge had come in connection with that enquiry from Delhi to Dehradun for the third time, the Enquiry Officer decided to proceed with the enquiry and examine him ex parte. PW.1 happened to be the Branch Manager where the respondent was posted at the material time and where the misappropriation was committed by him. In course of his evidence, in reply to the question what action was taken by him when the fraudulent entry came to light, the witness stated as follows:-
“PW.1: Shri Hemant Kumar (EPA) confessed having made a fraudulent entry of Rs.14000/- dated 26.09.93 in the A/C No.1287 of Miss Shivani and also confessed having balanced the ledger No.10 by manipulating the total on page 2 & 3 of Ex.P2. Hemant Kumar (EPA) gave a confession letter Ex.P4 probably on 10.02.94 and he was asked to deposit Rs.14000/-. Shri Hemant Kumar (EPA) deposited Rs.14000/- in the A/c of Miss Shivani on 11.02.94 vide credit voucher Ex.P3 which has been written in the hand of Hemant Kumar.”
6. After recording his evidence, the Enquiry Officer closed the enquiry and submitted his report holding the respondent guilty of all the charges. A copy of the enquiry report was sent to the respondent along with a letter telling him that it was tentatively decided to dismiss him from service and asking him to show cause and to appear for a personal hearing. The respondent gave his reply to the enquiry report and after hearing him in person, the disciplinary authority passed the order of his dismissal from service.
7. Against the order passed by the disciplinary authority, the respondent preferred an appeal and during the pendency of the appeal he submitted yet another letter admitting his guilt in writing, presumably hoping that a lenient view would be taken in the appeal. In the memo dated December 10, 1986 addressed to the Manager, State Bank of India, the respondent stated as
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
