2021 Supreme(SC) 686

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court Of Kerala at Ernakulam)
L. NAGESWARA RAO, SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.
THE CHAIRMAN, STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER – APPELLANT
VERSUS
M.J. JAMES – RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8223 OF 2009
DECIDED ON : 16-11-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Objective of definition clauses is to avoid frequent repetition in describing subject matter to which the word or expression is intended to apply – Definition can be with intent to attract a meaning already established by law; expand meaning by adding a meaning; or narrow meaning by exclusion.
(2) Disciplinary Proceedings – Right to be legally represented depends on how rules govern such representation – If rules are silent, party has no absolute right to be legally represented.
(3) Appeal – A right not exercised for a long time is non-existent – Doctrine of delay and laches as well as acquiescence are applied to non-suit litigants who approach court/appellate authorities belatedly without any justifiable explanation for bringing action after unreasonable delay.

Headnote:

(A) Interpretation of Statute – Definition Clause – Clause 22(ix)(a) of Chapter VIII of Bank of Cochin Service Code – Objective of definition clauses is to avoid frequent repetition in describing subject matter to which the word or expression is intended to apply – This is useful when same word or expression is used more than once in same enactment – Raison d’etre behind definition clause is that while interpreting a provision, defined word or expression would carry same meaning as defined words or expression are employed and used by the maker in the sense appropriate to definition – Definition can be with intent to attract a meaning already established by law; expand meaning by adding a meaning; or narrow meaning by exclusion – This general rule of construction laid down by enactment is subject to context – Interpreter, to deviate from defined meaning, should record reasons to show that word/expression in that particular provision carries a different meaning – Contrary context is not to be assumed or accepted easily, in absence of indication and reason to differ from defined meaning – Repugnancy will arise when definition meaning does not agree with subject in context – Repugnancy is not indicated and does not arise in context of Clause 22(ix)(a) of Chapter VIII of Service Code by mere absence of article ‘the’ in Clause 22(ix)(a) before word ‘bank’ – Deficiency of ‘the’ does not disclose abandonment of express definition of ‘bank’ vide Clause 2(e) of Service Code – Absurdity or even ambiguity is not obvious or even palpable – Word ‘bank’ in Clause 22(ix)(a) can be validly and effectively interpreted as per definition clause as referring to Bank of Cochin Ltd., and not any or other bank(s). (Para 18)

(B) Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Choice of representation in domestic inquiry – Right to be legally represented depends on how rules govern such representation – If rules are silent, party has no absolute right to be legally represented – However, entitlement of a fair hearing is not to be dispensed with – What fairness requires would depend upon nature of investigation and consequences it may have on persons affected by it – Right to be represented by a Counsel or agent of one’s choice is not an absolute right but one which can be controlled, restricted, or regulated by law, rules, or regulations – However, if charge is of severe and complex nature, then request to be represented through a Counsel or agent should be considered – Such proposition flows from entitlement of fair hearing which is applicable in judicial as well as quasi-judicial decisions. (Para 20)

(C) Natural Justice – Applicability – -Procedures which are considered inherent in exercise of a quasi-judicial or administrative power are those which facilitate if not ensure a just and fair decision – What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on facts and circumstances of that case, frame work of law under which enquiry is held and constitution of body of persons or tribunal appointed for that purpose – When a complaint is made that a principle of natural justice has been contravened, court must decide whether observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision in facts of the case. (Para 22)

(D) Appeal – Delay – No time does not mean any time – Assumption is that appeal would be filed at the earliest possible opportunity – Appeal should be filed within a reasonable time – What is a reasonable time is not to be put in a strait-jacket formula or judicially codified in form of days etc. as it depends upon facts and circumstances of each case – A right not exercised for a long time is non-existent – Doctrine of delay and laches as well as acquiescence are applied to non-suit litigants who approach court/appellate authorities belatedly without any justifiable explanation for bringing action after unreasonable delay. (Para 27)

(E) Service Law – Dismissal – Allegation of committing grave misconduct while working as Branch Manager of Bank, thereby causing financial loss to bank – Respondent was aware that his request to be represented by a representative of his own choice had been rejected – Even then he took time and decided not to file an appeal before Board of Directors against order of inquiry officer rejecting his request – He allowed inquiry proceedings to continue and then filed an application for production of documents – In spite of ample opportunity, respondent did not adduce evidence or examine witnesses, and abruptly stood up and walked out – Observations and findings in disciplinary proceedings on aspect of irregularities regarding exceeding his authority in grant of advances, acceptance of discovery bills and issue of bank guarantees etc. are clear and remain uncontroverted – Respondent had never prayed or sought permission to be represented by a Lawyer – Without satisfactory explanation justifying delay, it is difficult to hold that appeal was preferred within a reasonable time – Respondent was never an employee of appellant’s bank as his services were terminated nearly four months before Bank of Cochin, a private Bank, got amalgamated with State Bank of India – Appellants being at fault must bear burden and adverse consequences – Relief as granted certainly has serious financial repercussions and would also prevent appellants from taking further action – Studied silence of respondent, who did not correspond or make any representation for nine years, was with an ulterior motive as he wanted to take benefit of slipup though he had suffered dismissal – Courts can always refuse to grant relief to a litigant if it considers that grant of relief sought is likely to cause substantial hardship or substantial prejudice to opposite side or would be detrimental to good administration – This principle of good administration is independent of hardship, or prejudice to rights of third parties and does not require specific evidence that this has in fact occurred, though in relation to withholding relief some evidence may be required – Relief should not be denied for mere inconvenience but when difficulty caused to the decision maker approaches impracticability or when there is an overriding need for finality and certainty – Impugned judgment set aside and quashed – Order of dismissal upheld. [Clause 22(ix)(a) of Chapter VIII of Bank of Cochin Service Code] (Paras 26, 27, 28, 32 and 35)

(F) Doctrine – Distinction between ‘acquiescence’ and ‘delay and laches’ – Doctrine of acquiescence is an equitable doctrine which applies when a party having a right stands by and sees another dealing in a manner inconsistent with that right, while the act is in progress and after violation is completed, which conduct reflects his assent or accord – He cannot afterwards complain – In literal sense, term acquiescence means silent assent, tacit consent, concurrence, or acceptance, which denotes conduct that is evidence of an intention of a party to abandon an equitable right and also to denote conduct from which another party will be justified in inferring such an intention – Acquiescence can be either direct with full knowledge and express approbation, or indirect where a person having the right to set aside the action stands by and sees another dealing in a manner inconsistent with that right and inspite of infringement takes no action mirroring acceptance – However, acquiescence will not apply if lapse of time is of no importance or consequence – Laches unlike limitation is flexible – However, both limitation and laches destroy remedy but not the right – Laches like acquiescence is based upon equitable considerations, but laches unlike acquiescence imports even simple passivity – On the other hand, acquiescence implies active assent and is based upon the rule of estoppel in pais – As a form of estoppel, it bars a party afterwards from complaining of violation of right – Even indirect acquiescence implies almost active consent, which is not to be inferred by mere silence or inaction which is involved in laches – Acquiescence in this manner is quite distinct from delay – Acquiescence virtually destroys right of the person – Inactive acquiescence on part of respondent can be inferred till filing of appeal, and not for period post filing of appeal – Nevertheless, this acquiescence being in nature of estoppel bars respondent from claiming violation of right of fair representation – Questions of prejudice, change of position, creation of third-party rights or interests on part of party seeking relief are important and relevant aspects as delay may obscure facts, encourage dubious claims, and may prevent fair and just adjudication – Often, relevant and material evidence go missing or are not traceable causing prejudice to opposite party – It is necessary for court to consciously examine whether a party has chosen to sit over the matter and has woken up to gain any advantage and benefit – These facets, when proven, must be factored and balanced, even when there is delay and laches on part of authorities – These have bearing on grant and withholding of relief. (Paras 29, 30 and 31)

Facts of the case:

Chairman, State Bank of India, Central Office, Mumbai, and the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Chennai, in this appeal assail the order and judgment dated 09.12.2008 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dismissing their intra-court writ appeal, W.A. No. 2052/2007. The Division Bench, thereby, affirmed the order of the Single Judge in O.P No. 5527 of 1999 dated 14.03.2007, quashing the disciplinary proceedings against Respondent on the ground of violation of Clause 22(ix)(a) of Chapter VIII of the Bank of Cochin Service Code. Writ petition was allowed primarily on the ground that the inquiry officer had wrongly rejected request of respondent to be defended/represented by organizing secretary of the All-India Confederation of Bank Organizations, Kerala Unit. This amounted to a denial of reasonable opportunity, notwithstanding the respondent’s participation in inquiry.

Findings of Court:

By the order dated 04.12.2009, the dues payable to the respondent in terms of the impugned judgment were released to him on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Chief General Manager. During the course of hearing, it was stated that the amount released has been kept in a fixed deposit. The payment released directed to be returned and restituted to the appellant bank without interest within a period of six weeks from the date of pronouncement of this judgment. However, in case payment is not made within the aforesaid period, the respondent would be liable to pay interest @ 8% per annum from the date of this judgment till actual payment is made. In addition, appellants would be entitled to enforce security furnished by the respondent.

Result : Appeal allowed.