RAVINDRANATH H. R. vs SYNDICATE BANK

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2004 Supreme(Kar) 604

Karnataka High Court
Ravindranath H.R. - Appellant
Versus
Syndicate Bank - Respondent
Decided On : 10-29-04
. : .

Advocates:
P.S.RAJGOPAL, S.S.Ramdas, SUNDARASWAMY RAMADAS

Headnote:Disciplinary authority
       LABOUR AND SERVICES - Disciplinary Authority -Reasons to be given by Disciplinary Authority - For holding the delinquent guilty, the Disciplinary Authority should assign reasons.
       [N. Kumar, J]: The order holding the delinquent guilty should contain reasons. Giving reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live-links between the mind of the decision taker to the Controversy in question and the decision or conclusions arrived at. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Right to reasons is indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter dealt with, so that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him.
       Disciplinary Proceedings
       LABOUR AND SERVICES - Disciplinary Proceedings - Disciplinary Authority disagreeing with report of enquiry officer - Need of second show cause notice - Should be issued and delinquent be heard and be allowed to persuade to accept report of enquiry officer - It is not an empty formality.
       [N. Kumar, J]: In cases where the disciplinary authority disagrees with the finding of the Inquiry Officer, the principles of natural justice requires that the disciplinary authority must issue a second show cause notice, recording in the said show cause notice his tentative reason for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer, an opportunity to represent before it to record its findings. When such an opportunity is given, the delinquent will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the Inquiry officer. It is after consideration of such explanation offered by the delinquent officer, the Disciplinary Authority has to record its own findings on such charges. Giving of a second show cause notice and giving an opportunity to the delinquent officer to persuade the Disciplinary Authority to accept the finding of the Enquiry Officer is not an idle formality. It is a mandatory requirement of law. It is only, after all these stages are over, the disciplinary authority has to apply its mind not only to the evidence on record, findings of the Inquiry Officer but also to the explanation offered by the delinquent officer and then to record a finding on the basis of the said materials.
       Enquiry proceedings
       LABOUR AND SERVICES -Enquiry proceedings -Disagreement with report of enquiry officer - Issue of second show cause notice to delinquent - Procedure to be followed by Disciplinary Authority.
       [N. Kumar, J]: Even before issue of second show cause notice and considering the representation of the delinquent employee, the disciplinary authority should not come to any definite conclusion or finding. It should keep an open mind. It must record its tentative reasons for differing from the findings of the enquiry officer, to enable the delinquent to know the mind of the disciplinary authority, so that he has an opportunity to persuade to change the mind. But, if the authority makes up its mind before issue of second show cause notice and embarks upon a post decisional hearing, it will naturally proceed with a closed mind and there is hardly any chance of getting a proper consideration at a post decisional opportunity. Once a decision has been taken there is a tendency to uphold it, and representation may not really yield any fruitful purpose.
       Natural Justice
       LABOUR AND SERVICES -Natural justice - Disciplinary Proceedings - It has two stages - (i) Arrival at conculsion based on evidence and report of enquiry officer s report sand reply by delinquent, (ii) Imposition of penalty -Violation of principles of natural justice at first stage - Order is void -Violation as at second stage - Unless the delinquent proves that, such violation has prejudiced him, the order cannot be interfered with, as a matter of course.
       [N. Kumar, J]: When the Enquiry officer is other than the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary proceedings brake into two stages. The first stage ends where the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusion on the basis of the evidence, Inquiry Officer s report and the delinquent employees reply to it. The second stage begins when the disciplinary authority decides to impose penalty on the basis of its conclusion. If there is any violation of the principles of natural justice during the 1st stage, the order of the disciplinary authority would be void, honest, in the eye of law. If the violation complained of, is in the course of 2nd stage, even if that violation is held to be proved unless the delinquent shows, as to how it has prejudiced his interest, the order of the disciplinary authority is not liable to be interfered with as a matter of course.
       NATURAL JUSTICE - Need of compliance
       Need of compliance - Domestic enquiry - Whether rules and regulations provide or not, the principles of natural justice should be complied with.
       [N. Kumar, J]: In domestic enquiries, whether rules and regulations provide for reasonable opportunity or not principles of natural justice must be followed. Any violation of the principles of natural justice would vitiate the entire enquiry.

( 1 ) THE petitioner joined the services of the respondent-Bank on August 13, 1973 as a stenographer. He came to be promoted as an officer in Junior Management Grade Scale-I wef September 13, 1978. From October 30, 1992, the petitioner was functioning as manager at Lachyan Branch of the respondent bank While working in the said Branch, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated august 25, 1993 alleging that he demanded bribe of Rs. 1,000/- from five persons namely (1) Sharanappa S. Sambhaji, (2) Madeva R. Badigara, (3) Dharmaraya Peerappa mujagond, (4) Siddappa Hanumantha Harjan and (5) Iyagand Yeshwant Sindgi, and when they did not pay, the petitioner refused to release the loan. The further allegation was he released loans to three persons namely (1) shivappa Gowda Iranagonda Patil, (2) mahadeva Siddappa Talakere and (3) naganatha Shankarappa Patel, after accepting the bribe from them. Annexure- A is the charge-sheet The petitioner submitted a defence statement on September 29, 1993 denying the charges and also alleging mala fide against the management as per Annexure- B. Not being satisfied with the defense of the petitioner, an enquiry was initiated and an enquiry Officer was appointed. Parties adduced evidence. The Enquiry Officer, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties submitted a report dated May 24, 1998 holding that the charges i against the petitioner are not proved by giving detailed reasons. Annexure-E is the copy of the said enquiry report. The Disciplinary authority issued a communication dated August 24, 1998 as per Annexure-G enclosing a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer and pointing out the grounds on which he disagrees with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and holding that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him and called upon the petitioner to submit his submissions if any as per annexure-G. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation as per Annexure-H dated September 29, 1998, pointing out why he should not disagree with the finding of the enquiry Officer Thereafter, the Disciplinary authority proceeded to pass the impugned order at Annexure-J rejecting the contention of the petitioner as not convincing and holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him and accordingly punishment was imposed compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service Aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary Authority, the petitioner preferred statutory appeal to the Appellate Authority as per Annexure-K on November 27, 1998 urging several grounds. The appellate authority considering the entire record and on careful evaluation of the case, held that there is no extenuating factors warranting interference with the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and accordingly confirmed the penalty imposed by an order dated January 7, 1999. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner sri P. S. Rajagopal, contended that the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary authority is liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as, even before hearing the petitioner, on the second show cause notice, the disciplinary Authority has made up his mind to hold that the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. Therefore, there is no necessity to consider other grounds urged for quashing the impugned order.

( 3 ) PER contra (sic) the learned senior counsel Shri S. S. Ramdas, appearing for the respondent Bank contended that, when the disciplinary Authority disagrees with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the law requires the delinquent employee should be given a second show cause notice pointing out the grounds on which the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the finding of the Enquiry officer and once such requirement is complied with, as in this case, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Though the content

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(Kar) 604

Karnataka High CourtRavindranath H.R. - AppellantVersusSyndicate Bank - RespondentDecided On : 10-29-04. : .

Karnataka High Court
Ravindranath H.R. - Appellant
Versus
Syndicate Bank - Respondent
Decided On : 10-29-04
. : .