Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.L.N.SHARMA
Sri Ahmed Mohiddin - Appellant
Versus
State Bank of Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 03-22-94
STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD (OFFICERS) SERVICE REGULATIONS, 1979 - REGULATION 67 - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - NON-SUPPLY OF INQUIRY OFFICER'S REPORT TO DELINQUENT - VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - PREJUDICE TO DELINQUENT NOT REQUIRED TO BE ESTABLISHED - PUNISHMENT SET ASIDE - REINSTATEMENT DIRECTED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an officer in the State Bank of Hyderabad, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and imposed with a penalty of reduction in rank and other sanctions. The petitioner challenged the proceedings on the ground that he was not provided with the findings of the Inquiry Officer before the punishment was imposed, violating the principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the non-supply of the Inquiry Officer's report to the petitioner before the disciplinary authority considered the same is opposed to the principles of natural justice. The court further held that in cases where the punishment imposed is not dismissal or removal from service, it is not necessary for the petitioner to establish that the non-supply of the Inquiry Officer's Report prejudiced him. The non-supply of the Inquiry Officer's Report itself vitiates the proceedings.
Issues: 1. Whether the non-supply of the Inquiry Officer's report to the petitioner before the imposition of punishment violated the principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the petitioner was required to establish prejudice caused by the non-supply of the Inquiry Officer's Report?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECJL, Hyderabad vs. B. Karunakar, which held that the non-supply of the Inquiry Officer's report to the delinquent employee before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions is a denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee to defend himself and is a breach of the principles of natural justice. 2. The court held that the principle laid down in Karunakar's case applies to all establishments, whether Government or non-Government, public or private, and irrespective of whether there are any rules governing the situation or not. 3. The court distinguished the observations made in Karunakar's case regarding the need to establish prejudice in cases involving dismissal or removal from service, holding that such a requirement does not apply to cases involving other punishments.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order imposing punishment on the petitioner and directed the respondents to restart the disciplinary proceedings from the stage of giving an opportunity to the petitioner to submit a representation to the report of the Inquiry Officer. The court also directed the respondents to complete the enquiry within two months from the date of receipt of the representation/explanation from the petitioner.
( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings of the Board of Directors of the State Bank of Hyderabad, dated 7-12-1990 in and by the terms of which the petititioner was inflicted with the penalty of placing him at the start of the basic pay applicable to officers of JMGS-I cadre viz. , at Rs. 2,100-00 bringing him down by nine stages from the basic pay the petitioner was drawing viz. , Rs. 3,180-00. The Board of Directors also debarred the petitioner from being considered for promotion for a period of five years and also directed recovery of the amount of Rs. 550-00 which amount was said to have been paid by the Bank to one Sri Bandappa Kallappa Gandge. The said order imposing penalty was communicated by the Managing Director in his letter dt. 13-2-1991 to the petitioner. The petitioner is seeking a direction from this Court for quashing those proceedings by the issuance of writ of certiorari.
( 2 ) THE relevant facts are as follows: the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the first respondent-bank on 5-6-1963 and was promoted as an Officer with effect from 1-91970. While so, he was placed under suspension pending departmental enquiry with effect from 9-10-1976 on certain allegations while he was working as Branch Manager, kamalanagar branch. Several proceedings have taken in the meanwhile which itmay not be necessary to refer for the purpose of disposing of this Writ Petition. Suffice it to refer to the two earlier proceedings which were taken in this Court by the petitioner. Charge sheet No. 8/20 dated 8-12-1976 was issued to the petitioner. The Executive Committee at its meeting held on 21-4-1977, considering the explanation of the petitioner, came to the conclusion that the charges were established and resolved to impose on him the penalty of reversion to the clerical cadre etc. Accordingly show cause notice was issued to him. At that stage the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 526 of 1978 in this Court questioning the entire proceedings and the matter ultimately disposed of by a division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 461 of 1978. This Court directed the Board of Directors of the first respondent-bank and not the Executive committee, to consider the case afresh by affording the petitioner a fair opportunity to defend his case.
( 3 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the Board of Directors at the meeting held on 28-12-1981 proposed to impose upon the petitioner the penalty of discharge from the bank s Services, subject to his further explanation, if any and then after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner at the meeting of the board of Directors dated 6-8-1982 the penalty of discharge from the Bank s services was imposed on the petitioner. Questioning those proceedings again the petitioner filed W. P. No. 6754 of 1982 in this Court. Ultimately, this Court while quashing the order discharging the petitioner, directed the. Board of directors to conduct an enquiry into the charges alleged against the official by confining to the show cause notice dated 30-4-1977 by following the procedure prescribed under the State Bank of Hyderabad (Officers ) Service Regulations, 1979.
( 4 ) THE disciplinary proceedings were conducted accordingly and ultimately the punishment, as aforesaid was imposed on the petitioner and along with the punishment imposed on the petitioner, the report of the Enquiry Officer was also served on the petitioner.
( 5 ) QUESTIONING these proceedings imposing the penalty on the petitioner, as aforesaid, this Writ Petition has been filed. One of the grounds raised in the Writ petition is that the petitioner was not supplied with the findings of the Enquiry officer before the punishment was imposed and therefore the procedure adopted by the second and third respondents is illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice.
( 6 ) AS I stated, the petitioner raised several contentions in the Writ Petition apart from the one which is referred to
AI
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
