Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1766 of 2005
PETITIONER:
Syndicate Bank & Ors.
RESPONDENT:
Venkatesh Gururao Kurati
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/01/2006
BENCH:
H.K. SEMA & Dr.A.R. LAKSHMANAN
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
H.K.SEMA,J
This appeal, preferred by Syndicate Bank is directed
against the Judgment and Order dated 16th April, 2004 passed
by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.7997 of 1999
affirming the order dated 14th June, 1999 of the learned Single
Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 12594 of 1991 allowing the
Writ Petition filed by the respondent herein.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows:-
The respondent was working as Manager of the
appellant’s bank at Horti Branch (Karnataka) between
30.12.1976 and 22.7.1981. It is alleged that during the said
period the respondent in collusion with certain staff members
got necessary documents signed and arranged loans in the
name of poor illiterate villagers under the Integrated Rural
Development Program and misappropriated the proceeds of
such loans. The allegations are:-
"a) On 20.06.1979 he obtained loan
application and other documents from one Sri.
S.M. Desai with Sr. N.C. Yelasangi as the
proposed surety/co-obligant without informing
them the purpose for which the same was
obtained. A loan of Rs.6000/- for working
capital needs of Sri. S.M. Desai’s Boosari
business was sanctioned and arranged by the
respondent though the said Sri. S.M. Desai
was not doing such business. Thereafter, the
loan proceeds was withdrawn and received by
the respondent by using a withdrawal slip
issued in the name of the said Sri. S.M. Desai
15 days prior to the arranging the loan.
b) Between January 1981 and March 1981,
the respondent in connivance with Sri.
K.B.Bhaskaraiah, the then Farm
Representative of bank’s Horti branch, Sri.
H.K. Hegdeyal, the Pigmy collection Agent Sri
Mareppa P. Talakeri, the then Attender of the
bank’s Horti branch and Sri. Parasappa
Siddappa Talakeri, father of the said Sri,
Mareppa P. Talakeri sanctioned and arranged
12 Sheep Loans of Rs. 4000/- each
aggregating to Rs. 48,000/- under the DRI
Scheme and received the amount of the said
loans either directly or through the accounts of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9
the said Sr. Parasappa Siddappa Talakeri.
This was done as detailed below:-
i) Sri. Parasappa Siddappa Talakeri
obtained loan application for sheep loans
in the names of either his family
members who were not eligible for such
loans or other poor uneducated people of
the village.
ii) Necessary Farm Representative’s Reports
were obtained from Sri. K.B.
Bhaskaraiah, the Farm Representative.
iii) Though the amount of loans were to be
released to the suppliers directly the
same were credited to the Savings Bank
Accounts of the borrowers. To show that
the transactions were genuine, Stamped
Receipts for purchase of sheep were
obtained and put on record.
c) Out of the 12 sheep loans arranged as aforesaid:
i) Sri, Eswarappa Bhimappa Harijan who
had received only Rs.300/- from the
amount of loan of Rs.4000/- arranged in
his name as above said, sought the
intervention of Sri. S.S. Shivar, the village
Panchayat President and thereupon, the
respondent paid the said Sri. Eswarappa
Bhimappa Harijan a sum of Rs.3,500/-.
ii) Sri. S.R.Harijan another such villager in
whose name such loan was arranged who
did not receive the loan proceeds, took up
the matter directly with the respondent
and thereupon the respondent paid him a
sum of Rs.3000/-
iii) Smt. Girijava Omnna Harijan, Smt.
K.R.Harijan and Sri. S.D. Harijan denied
having received the loan amount.
d) On 22.07.1981, the date of relief of the
respondent from the bank’s Horti branch, he
sanctioned a loan of Rs.10,000/- to Sri.
Parasappa Siddappa Talakeri. On 24.07.1981
Sri. Mareppa P. Talakeri, credited a sum of
Rs.120/- each to 72 loan accounts including
the said 12 Sheep loan accounts from the
proceeds of the loan of Rs.10,000/- sanctioned
by the respondent to the said Sri. Parasappa
Siddappa Talakeri."
On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the following
charges were framed against the respondent on 5th August,
1985 with the statement of imputations of misconduct:
CHARGE SHEET UNDER REGULATION NO.6 OF
SYNDICATE BANK OFFICER EMPLOYEES’
(DISCIPLINE & APPEAL) REGULATIONS 1976.
WHEREAS it is proposed to hold an enquiry against
you in accordance with the procedure laid down in
Regulation No.6 of Syndicate Bank Officer
Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9
AND
WHEREAS the Articles of Charges and Statement of
Imputations of misconduct in respect of which the
enquiry is proposed to he held are mentioned here
below:
NOW THEREFORE, you are hereby directed to
submit within 15 days from the date of receipt of
this Charge Sheet, your written statement of
defence, if any, showing cause as to why
departmental proceedings should not be initiated
against you and appropriate action should not be
taken against you.
ARTICLES OF CHARGES
ARTICLE No.1:
That during the period between 30.12.1976 and
22.7.1981, you were functioning as manager of our
Horti Branch and that while functioning in your
position as such, on 20.6.1979, you obtained loan
applications and other documents in the name of
Shri Shankarappa Malakappa Desai with Sri N.C.
Yelasangi as the proposed co-obligant / surety
without informing them the purpose for which, they
were obtained:
AND
Then sanctioned and arranged in their names, a
secured Loan of Rs.6,000/- for the ostensible
purpose of working capital requirements of Boosari
business, knowingly or having reaons to believe that
the said Sri Shankarappa Malakappa Desai was not
doing such business;
AND
Got the loan proceeds withdrawn and received the
same through a withdrawal slip issued in the name
of the said Sri Desai, 15 days prior to the arranging
of the loan.
By your above acts, you failed to discharge your
duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and
diligence and exhibited conduct unbecoming of a
Bank Officer and thereby violated Regulation
No.3(1) of the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees’
(Conduct) Regulations, 1976.
ARTICLE No.II
That during the period between January 1981 and
March 1981, you, in connivance with Sri
K.B.Bhaskaraiah, the then Farm representative of
our Horti Branch, Sri H.K. Hegdeyal, the pigmy
collection Agent of the branch, Sri Mareppa
P.Talakeri, the then Attendar of the Branch and Sri
Parasappa Siddappa Talakeri, father of the said Sri
Mareppa P.Talakeri, obtained application forms for
sheep loans through the said Sri Mareppa P.
Talakeri, in the names of either his family members
of other poor uneducated people of the village;
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9
AND
Secured Farm Representative Reports from Sri.
K.B.Bhaskaraiah, the Farm representative;
AND
Sanctioned 12 loans for a total sum of Rs.48,000/-
under the IRDP Scheme;
AND
Got the loan proceeds withdrawn from the accounts
of the borrowers concerned and received the
amount either directly or through the accounts of
the said Sri Parasappa Siddappa Talakeri, Sri H.K.
Hegdeyal and others known to you;
AND
In the process, committed various irregularities as
more fully described in the statement of
imputations of misconduct mentioned herein below:
By your above acts, you failed to discharge your
duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and
diligence and exhibited conduct unbecoming of a
Bank Officer and thereby violated Regulation
No.3(1) of the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees’
(Conduct) Regulations, 1976.
The Enquiry Officer was appointed. He conducted
the enquiry after giving an opportunity to the respondent,
submitted its report on 3.7.1989 finding the respondent guilty
of the charges proved. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the
report of the Enquiry Officer and by the impugned order dated
29.7.1989 removed the respondent from the service of the
bank with immediate effect. However, the same shall not be
the disqualification for future employment. Thereafter, the
respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The
Appellate Authority gave the respondent personal hearing on
25.04.1991. In the appeal, the respondent submitted that he
did not want to make any oral submission but submitted a
written representation dated 25.4.1991 along with additional
appeal filed on 2.9.1989. After considering the appeal filed by
the respondent, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal
by an order dated 29.4.1991 confirming the punishment of
removal imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Aggrieved
thereby, the respondent filed a Writ Petition No. 12594 of 1991
challenging the removal of the respondent from the bank
service. The learned Single Judge amongst others held that it
is not a fit case for interference in so far as the finding on the
charges framed against the petitioner (respondent herein).
However, the learned single Judge was of the opinion that
punishment imposed on the respondent was disproportionate
to the gravity of the charge proved. The learned single Judge
was also of the opinion that the respondent was placed under
suspension from 19.7.1989 and he was removed from service
on 29.7.1989 i.e. two days before the date on which the
petitioner (respondent herein) would have attained the
superannuation age in the normal course. The petitioner
(respondent herein) served the appellant’s bank for more than
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9
33 years and except this disciplinary proceeding there was no
other allegation of misconduct against the petitioner
(respondent herein) while working in the bank. The petitioner
(respondent herein) was removed from the bank service just
two days before he completed the age of 58 years and during
his old age, he must necessarily have something to maintain
himself and his family members. On these compassionate
grounds, the learned single Judge converted the order of
removal from service into compulsorily retirement.
In our view, this is no ground for converting the
order of removal from service into compulsorily retirement. On
the question of punishment being disproportionate to the
charges framed and proved, we are of the view that the
charges framed and proved are grievous in nature, which
would normally attract removal from service, if such charges
were proved. We are also of the view that sentiments and
compassion have no role to play in such a situation when the
gravity of misconduct such as this has been found well proved
against the respondent.
Against the order of the learned Single Judge,
curiously enough, the respondent preferred Writ Appeal No.
7997 of 1999 and the appellants herein filed cross objections.
Both the appeal and the cross-objections were disposed by a
common order by the Division Bench after re-appreciating the
evidence allowing the writ appeal by setting aside the order
dated 14.6.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition No. 12594 of 1991 and quashed the order of dismissal
dated 29.7.1989. Hence the present appeal by special leave.
In the writ appeal, the learned Division bench
framed the following issues:-
(i) Whether charges framed against the
appellant-delinquent officer are
vague?
(ii) Whether non-supply of the
documents sought by the appellant
vitiated the enquiry and the action
of the management of the
respondent Bank in removing the
appellant from service as a
disciplinary measure?
(iii) Whether placing reliance on
statements previously recorded by
CBI by the Enquiry Officer has
vitiated the enquiry?
(iv) Whether the findings of fact
recorded by the Enquiry Officer are
perverse for want of legal evidence?
The Division Bench decided issue Nos. 1, 3 and 4
against the respondent herein. The Division Bench, however,
decided issue No.2 against the appellant herein, that non-
supply of documents sought by the appellant vitiated the
inquiry resulting the removal of the respondent from the bank
service.
The sole question, therefore, to be determined is,
whether non-supply of documents, which did not form part of
chargesheet and were not relied upon by the prosecution
prejudice the delinquent officer resulting in vitiating the
enquiry proceedings.
During the proceeding the management has
produced oral evidence of 24 witnesses and documentary
evidence by producing 218 documents, the fact which is not
denied by the delinquent officer.
It was the specific case of the appellants that the
documents sought by the delinquent officer which were
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9
relevant for the purpose of enquiry and which were part of the
charges were supplied to the delinquent officer, but the
documents which were not supplied to the delinquent officer
were those on which the prosecution either did not rely or
which did not form part of the charges.
Before we examine the issue No.2 we may at this
stage quote the finding of the learned Division Bench in
paragraph 16 of the judgment:
"The reasons stated by the management of the Bank
not to supply copies of certain documents sought by
the appellant, in our considered opinion, are totally
irrational and untenable. The documents in respect
of which privilege of confidentiality was claimed by
the Bank’s Management, by no stretch of
imagination, could be regarded as privileged
documents or confidential in nature. Therefore, we
do not think that the Bank’s Management was
justified and acted legally in refusing to furnish the
copies of the documents sought by the appellant. It
is our considered opinion that all the documents
sought by the appellant-delinquent are either those
documents on the basis of which the disciplinary
authority has framed the charges and the
documents on which the disciplinary authority has
placed reliance to prove those charges or the
documents though, they are not the basis for
framing the charges nor those of which the
disciplinary authority places reliance to prove the
charges against the appellant delinquent, but, they
would have aided the appellant-delinquent, to
effectively cross-examine the witnesses of the
disciplinary authority."
(emphasis supplied)
The High Court’s finding, in our view, is perverse.
The High Court having come to the conclusion that the
documents sought by the respondent are not the basis for
framing the charges nor those on which the Disciplinary
Authority placed any reliance to prove the charges against the
delinquent officer held that non-supply of those documents
sought by the delinquent officer prejudiced his case and
resulted in vitiating the proceedings.
From the record, it appears that the delinquent
officer sought for supply of certain documents. The twelve
documents, which formed part of the charges and were relied
upon by the Inquiry Officer, were supplied to him by a letter
dated 11th August, 1987. Two documents were produced
during the enquiry for cross-examination of the witnesses.
This fact was admitted by the counsel for the respondent at
the time of hearing. Rest of the documents were not supplied
to the delinquent officer stating that they had no relevancy to
the enquiry, meaning thereby that neither they form part of
the charges nor were relied upon by the prosecution during
the course of enquiry.
Apart, from this the delinquent officer did not deny
that the prosecution relied upon 218 documents and also 24
witnesses and the delinquent officer had an opportunity to
cross examine them and also examine the documents on basis
of which the witnesses were cross-examined in the course of
enquiry. The Enquiry Officer as stated earlier submitted a
detailed report in which the delinquent officer did not deny at
all, either by oral or written arguments, that he did not receive
the cash from the cashier which was meant for the loanee.
Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently urged that
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9
although the documents may not form part of the charges or
be relied upon by the prosecution in the course of enquiry,
denial of the same would prejudice the delinquent’s case
because denial of contemporary documents deprive the right of
the delinquent to set up an effective defence. We are unable to
countenance such submissions at all, that the documents
which do not form part of the charges or are relied upon by the
prosecution during the course of enquiry, non-supply of which
would cause any prejudice to the delinquent officer.
In the case of Krishna Chandra Tandon Vs. The
Union of India, (1974) 4 SCC 374, it is held in paragraph 16
as under:-
"Mr.Hardy next contended that the appellant
had really no reasonable opportunity to defend
himself and in this connection he invited our
attention to some of the points connected with
the enquiry with which we have now to deal. It
was first contended that inspection of relevant
records and copies of documents were not
granted to him. The High Court has dealt with
the matter and found that there was no
substance in the complaint. All that Mr.
Hardy was able to point out to us was that the
reports received by the Commission of Income-
tax from his departmental subordinates before
the charge-sheet was served on the appellant
had not been made available to the appellant.
It appears that on complaints being received
about his work the Commission of Income-tax
had asked the Inspecting Assistant
Commissioner Shri R.N. Srivastava to make a
report. He made a report. It is obvious that
the appellant was not entitled to a copy of the
report made by Mr. Srivastava or any other
officer unless the enquiry officer relied on
these reports. It is very necessary for an
authority which orders an enquiry to be
satisfied that there are prima facie grounds for
holding a disciplinary enquiry and, therefore,
before he makes up his mind he will either
himself investigate or direct his subordinates
to investigate in the matter and it is only after
he receives the result of these investigations
that he can decide as to whether disciplinary
action is called for or not. Therefore, these
documents of the nature of inter-departmental
communications between officers preliminary
to the holding of enquiry have really no
importance unless the Enquiry Officer wants
to rely on them for his conclusions. In that
case it would only be right that copes of the
same should be given to the delinquent. It is
not the case here that either the Enquiry
Officer or the Commissioner of Income-tax
relied on the report of Shri R.N.Srivastava or
any other officer for his finding against the
appellant. Therefore, there is no substance in
this submission."
In the case of Chandrama Tewari vs. Union of
India, 1987 (Supp.) SCC 518 at scc p.521 it was held by this
Court:
"However, it is not necessary that each and
every document must be supplied to the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9
delinquent government servant facing the
charges, instead only material and relevant
documents are necessary to be supplied to
him. If a document even though mentioned in
the memo of charges is not relevant to the
charges or if it is not referred to or relied up by
the enquiry officer or the punishing authority
in holding the charges proved against the
government servant, no exception can be taken
to the validity of the proceedings or the order.
If the document is not used against the party
charged the ground of violation of principles of
natural justice cannot successfully be raised.
The violation of principles of natural justice
arises only when a document, copy of which
may not have been supplied to the party
charged when demanded is used in recoding
finding of guilt against him. On a careful
consideration of the authorities cited on behalf
of the appellant we find that the obligation to
supply copies of a document is confined only
to material and relevant documents and the
enquiry would be vitiated only if the non-
supply of material and relevant documents
when demanded may have caused prejudice to
the delinquent officer."
In our view, non-supply of documents on which the
Enquiry Officer does not rely during the course of enquiry does
not create any prejudice to the delinquent. It is only those
documents, which are relied upon by the Enquiry Officer to
arrive at his conclusion, the non-supply of which would cause
prejudice being violative of principles of natural justice. Even
then, the non-supply of those documents prejudice the case of
delinquent officer must be established by the delinquent
officer. It is well settled law that the doctrine of principles of
natural justice are not embodied rules. It cannot be put in a
straitjacket formula. It depends upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. To sustain the allegation of
violation of principles of natural justice, one must establish
that prejudice has been caused to him for non-observance of
principles of natural justice.
Learned counsel for the respondent has cited the
following rulings of this Court:
Committee of Management, Kisan Degree
College vs. Shambhu Saran Pandey, (1995) 1 SCC 404,
wherein it has been held by this Court that denial of an
opportunity to inspect documents at the time of final hearing
is erroneous procedure and in violation of principles of natural
justice. This is not the fact of the case at hand.
State of U.P. vs. Shatrughan Lal, (1998) 6 SCC
651 wherein this Court held that where the charge-sheet is
issued and the documents which are proposed to be utilized
against that person are indicated in the charge-sheet but
copies thereof are not supplied to him in spite of his request
and at the same time he is called upon to submit his reply
cannot constitute an effective opportunity to defend The
aforesaid decision is of no help to the facts of the respondent’s
case.
Lastly, it is contended by the counsel for the
respondent, that the respondent has put in 33 years of service
and he was dismissed from service just two days prior to the
age of superannuation, therefore, this Court may consider the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9
entitlement of pension and gratuity in spite of removal from
service. In this connection, learned counsel has cited the
decision of this Court in Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur vs. State
Bank of India (2005) 1 SCC 13 where Dr.Justice A.R.
Lakshmanan speaking for the Bench although upholding the
dismissal of the appeal held that in the peculiar facts and
circumstances the appellant will be entitled to full pension and
gratuity irrespective of his total period of service. In that case
the officer had sanctioned loan to his wife. However, having
realised the mistake later he tried to salvage the same by not
encashing the draft issued in the name of his wife and the
draft was not encashed. In those peculiar facts and
circumstances since no loss was caused to the bank this
Court took that view. The decision in Ganesh Santa Ram
Sirur (supra) is distinguishable from the facts of this case.
In the view we have taken the order dated
14.6.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge and the order
dated 16.4.2004 passed by the Division Bench are hereby
quashed and set aside. The order of the Disciplinary Authority
dated 29.7.1989 removing the respondent from service is
restored. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.