Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2003 Supreme(Raj) 215

Supreme Court
Honble SHIVARAJ V. PATIL & ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.
Canara Bank & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Debasis Das & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7539 of 1999
Decided On : March 12, 2003

Advocates Appeared:
P.P. Rao, Senior Advocate with Mukesh K.Giri, G. Balaji and R.C. Jha, for Appellants Jaideep Gupta, Senior Advocate with Rana Mukherjee, Siddharth Gautam for Goodwill Indeevar, for Respondents

Headnote:(a) Natural Justice and Legal Justice – Distinction and scope of Natural Justice – No water tight classification – Substance of justice be secured – Whenever legal justice fails to achieve substantial justice, natural justice is called in aid of legal justice. (Para 15)(b) Natural Justice – Scope – First & Foremost principle is audi alteram partem – Party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. (Para 16)(c) Natural Justice – Principles of natural justice are rules laid down by Courts – It is to protect the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and Administrative Authority. (Para 17)
       The expression ``natural Justice and ``legal justice do not present a water-tight classification. It is the substance of justice which is to be secured by both, and whenever legal justice fails to achieve this solemn purpose, natural justice is called in aid of legal justice. Natural justice relieves legal justice from unnecessary technicality, grammatical pedantry or logical prevarication. it supplies the omission of a formulated law. (Para 15)
       The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognised by all civilised States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issues. These principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should appraise the party determinatively the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. (Para 16)
       Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the Courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary produce that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative Authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice. (Para 17)

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

Question 1?

What is the scope and ambit of Regulations 6(18) and 6(21) of the Canara Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 in disciplinary proceedings?

Question 2?

How does the principle of natural justice apply to pre-decisional and post-decisional hearings in disciplinary cases under Regulation 6(18), and is post-decisional hearing a valid remedy for procedural defects?

Question 3?

What constitutes prejudice and how should non-supply of the inquiry report or written briefs be evaluated in terms of natural justice and potential relief?

Honble PASAYAT, J.–Scope and ambit of Regulations 6(18) and 6(21) of the Canara Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as `the Regulations) fall for determination in this appeal.

(2). Filtering out unnecessary details, the factual background relevant for adjudication for the present dispute is as follows:-

(3). Four charge-sheets dated 12.12.1987, 5.11.1987, 23.3.1989 and 25.5.1989 were issued to respondent No.1 Debasis Das (hereinafter referred to as `the employee) by the functionaries for the Canara Bank, a Government of India undertaking. Disciplinary proceedings were commenced. Charge-sheet dated 5.11.1987 related to the non-vacation of residential quarter by the employee after expiry of the lease period. On completion of inquiry in respect of the said charge, disciplinary authority directed dismissal of the employee from the service of the Bank by order dated 28.8.1989. The disciplinary authority thereafter passed an order on 13.9.1989 which is the bone of contention of the parties. Details of the said order shall be dealt with infra and after the recital of the factual position is completed. Order of dismissal was challenged by the employee before the Calcutta High Court. By order dated 14.12.1990 in writ petition CO. NO. 10514 (W)/1989, the order of dismissal was set aside. Employee was reinstated on 28.1.1991. After reinstatement three office orders were issued to proceed with the inquiries relating to the other three charge sheets. According to the employer-Bank the proceedings were earlier suspended. Enquiry Officers and Presiding Officers were appointed in those proceedings. By letter dated 6.4.1991 employee requested to drop the proceeding in the said charge-sheets and to exonerate him from the charges contained. On 23.4.1991 he was advised by the authority to attend the inquiry proceedings. On 30.9.1991 list of the documents along with the copies were sent to the employee. On 24.11.1992 employee for the first time took the stand that he had been exonerated of the charges contained in the three charge-sheets and all proceedings in connection therewith had been dropped. Along with his letter, a photocopy purporting to be a copy of letter dated 13.9.1989 written by one Shri K.V. Nayak, officer of the Bank was sent. According to the appellant the evidence to employees letter dated 24.11.1992 was a fabricated document and contents of the actual letter dated 13.9.1989 sent by the Bank had been interpolated. Treating the letter to be a fabricated document further charge-sheet dated 21.5.1994 was issued where it was stated that during the progress of the pending three enquiries employee had produced certain forged/fabricated documents before the disciplinary authority and thus constituted misconduct. The charge-sheet along with statement of imputation were served on the employee. On 7.6.1994 employee wrote to the Acting Dy. General Manager that the proceedings dated 13.9.1989 received by him from the Bank was signed by the Dy. General Manager and not by the Acting General Manager of Shri K.V. Nayak as alleged or at all. Enquiry into the charge-sheet was conducted, the documents relied upon by the management were produced and the office copy of the letter issued under the signature of Mr. K.V. Nayak, Acting General Manager was produced. Certain witnesses were examined. During the inquiry employee was asked to produce the original letter claim to have been received by him, but his stand was that he did not desire to part custody of the defence documents since the same are very much required at a later stage. On 1.4.1995 the minutes were accordingly recorded.

The employee on that date made a statement that he wanted to make further submissions in his written briefs which he would be submitting in terms of Rule 6(18) and he was closing his evidence/defence. The Presenting Officer was directed by the Inquiry Officer to submit his written briefs within 10 days i.e. before 12.4.1995. He was also

Click Here to Read the rest of this document