http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 19

PETITIONER:

K. L. TRIPATHI

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT04/10/1983

BENCH:

MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)

BENCH:

MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)

CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)

PATHAK, R.S.

CITATION:

1984 AIR 273 1984 SCR (1) 184

1984 SCC (1) 43 1983 SCALE (2)587

CITATOR INFO :

R 1986 SC 995 (17)

D 1987 SC 71 (15)

ACT:

State Bank of India (Officers and Assistants) Service

Rules-Rule 49(f) read with rule 50-Scope of-Whether require

due compliance with principles of natural justice-Rule

whether statutory-No opinion expressed.

Statutory Bank employee-Associated with the inquiry-

Materials gathered at his back shown-Did not ask for cross-

examination-Asked for personal hearing-Personal hearing

given-Employee dismissed-Whether rules of natural justice

violated.

HEADNOTE:

On the basis of a complaint made against the appellant,

a Branch Manager of the first respondent Bank, the Head

Office of the Bank ordered a preliminary inquiry and after

considering the report of the preliminary inquiry directed

one of its officers to carry out investigation under the

rules governing the service of the officers of the Bank. The

Investigating officer conducted the investigation and also

framed charges against the appellant. The Investigating

officer held that the appellant had committed certain

irregularities wilfully, violated the established practices

and defied the Bank’s instructions. On the basis of the

report of the Investigating officer the appellant was served

with a charge-sheet. The charge against the appellant was

that he had acted in violation of procedure of the Bank, he

had disregarded all safeguards in sanctioning the

overdrafts, encashing bills and his conduct had exposed the

bank to grave risks and that he had flagrantly violated the

bank rules and instructions with a view to cover up attempts

to misappropriate bank’s money after defrauding the bank. In

his reply to the charge-sheet the appellant did not ask for

any opportunity to lead evidence in support of his defence

and for cross-examination of any of the officers in respect

of the matters stated against him. The appellant merely

asked for a personal hearing which was granted to him. The

Local Board of the Bank, after considering all the relevant

documents submitted to it, resolved that the appellant be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 19

dismissed, Thereafter the appellant was served notice to

show cause why he should not be dismissed from service in

terms of rule 49(f) of the State Bank of India (Officers and

Assistants) Service Rules. In his reply the appellant stated

inter alia that the inquiry was in violation of the

principles of natural justice. The Executive Committee of

the Central Board of the Bank after going through all the

necessary papers submitted to it, directed that the

appellant be dismissed from service. On being dismissed, the

appellant challenged his dismissal in the High Court

alleging contravention of the rules. The High Court

dismissed the

185

writ application on the ground that the rules had no

statutory effect. Hence this appeal by special leave. The

appellant contended that the impugned order should be struck

down as having been passed in violation of the principles of

natural justice. He submitted that rule 50 of the Rules

implied reasonable opportunity which required that materials

against a person should not be gathered behind his back and

he should be given an opportunity to cross-examine, if

necessary, the persons who had supplied the materials or

given evidence against him and since in his case the

materials against him were gathered in his absence and he

was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, and th