An enquiry is required to be held even when an employee admits guilt of misconduct, as per the Circular dated 18th June 1980, which was issued in implementation of the Sastry Award and Desai Award.

Nainar Sundaram, J.

1. The original petitioner, who is no more and who was working as Head Clerk of Gobichettipalayam Branch of the State Bank of India, was proceeded against in disciplinary action under paragraph 521 of the Sastry award, read with paragraph 18.28 of the Desai Award. There were four charges levelled against the original petitioner. We need not trouble ourselves with the details of the charges in view of the scope of the controversy raised before this Court in this writ petition. On the basis that the original petitioner admitted guilt in respect of all the charges, the first respondent, by order dated 12th July 1980 dismissed the original petitioner from service. The original petitioner preferred an appeal to the second respondent and the second respondent gave the benefit of doubt to the original petitioner in respect of charge II, but, however, maintained the order of dismissal of the first respondent with reference to the other charges. In this writ petition, the orders of respondents 1 and 2 are being impugned. On the demise of the original petitioner, pending this writ petition, his legal representatives have been brought on record and they are prosecuting this writ petition.

2. Mr. G. Venkataraman, learned Counsel for the petitioners on record, would submit that the original petitioner could not be stated to have admitted guilt in respect of the charges levelled against him and even otherwise the Sastry Award and Desai Award on the basis of which Circular relating to disciplinary action and procedure therefor emanated from the State Bank of India on 18th June 1980 contemplated the holding of an enquiry even where there is an admission of guilt by the employee, if the misconduct is one, if proved, would result in the award of the punishment of discharge or dismissed. The relevant paragraph in the above Circular reads as follows:

An enquiry need not be held if-

(i) the bank has issued a show-cause notice to the employee advising him of the misconduct and the punishment for which he may be liable for such misconduct;

(ii) the employee makes a voluntary admission of his guilt in reply to the aforesaid show-cause notice; and

(iii) the misconduct is such that even if proved the bank does not intend to award the punishment of discharge or dismissal.

In the instant case, the charges levelled against the original petitioner were termed as gross misconduct in the show-cause notice itself, and if proved would certainly lead to the award of the punishment of discharge or dismissal, and in fact that is exactly what happened here. The relevant paragraph in the Circular is unambiguous. Three conditions must be satisfied for dispensing with the holding of an enquiry; First is, a show-cause notice ought to have been issued to the employee advising him of his misconduct and the punishment which he may be liable for such misconduct. The second is, the employee should have made a voluntary admission of his guilt in reply to the show-cause notice. The third is, the misconduct should be such that even if proved, the intention was not to award the punishment of discharge or dismissal. As already noted, the very show cause notice declared the intention to treat the charges as amounting to gross misconduct and the punishment therefor, if proved, was admittedly discharge or dismissal. In such a contingency, it is not permissible to dispense with the enquiry.

3. Mr. Sanjay Mohan, learned Counsel for the respondents, would submit that the holding of enquiry would be an empty formality especially when the original petitioner had admitted guilt of the charges levelled against him and he wants to rely on a pronouncement of Shanmukham, J., in State Bank of India v. Kannabiran 1986 (1) LLN 462. That was a case which arose under Section 41(1) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 and it is true the earned Judge expressed an opinion to the above effect. In contrast, Mr. G. Venkataraman, learned Counsel for the present petition