Non-supply of an unrelied preliminary enquiry report does not vitiate disciplinary proceedings absent prejudice.

Savithri Sateesh, formerly an Assistant General Manager of Syndicate Bank, was charged in July 2000 with irregularities relating to loan accounts handled during her tenure at the Gandhinagar Branch.

Following a departmental inquiry, the charges were held proved and she was compulsorily retired; the penalty was upheld on appeal.

Her writ petition was first allowed, but that decision was set aside in the Bank’s appeal and the matter remanded. On reconsideration, the Single Judge dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.

Sateesh principally argued that the Bank’s failure to provide the preliminary investigation report, and the participation of its author as a management witness, denied her a fair opportunity to defend herself.

Whether non-supply of the preliminary investigation report and the participation of its author as a management witness vitiated the disciplinary inquiry for breach of natural justice.

Whether any procedural infraction in the inquiry caused prejudice sufficient to invalidate the findings and penalty.

Regulation 6(3) of the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, as it stood when the charge-sheet was issued, required communication of the charges and statement of allegations, but did not then require the accompanying supply of a list of documents and witnesses; those requirements were introduced by an amendment effective 2 June 2001.

The court considered the principles governing judicial review of disciplinary proceedings, including the limits on reappreciation of evidence and the need to identify procedural unfairness or prejudice.

It also considered T. Takano v. SEBI, Syndicate Bank v. Venkatesh Gururao Kurati, and the other cited authorities in assessing disclosure and fairness.

The charge-sheet was accompanied by a statement of allegations, and Sateesh was later given the list of relied-on documents and witnesses and copies of the relied-on documents; she also had an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and present evidence.

The court found that the inquiry officer had not relied on the preliminary investigation report and that the documents forming the basis of the allegations were produced in the inquiry and provided to Sateesh.

It further held that Sateesh had not demonstrated prejudice from the report’s non-disclosure or from its author’s participation as a witness.

The court therefore rejected the contention that these circumstances rendered the inquiry unfair or invalid.

The writ appeal was dismissed, and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.