Reliance on an undisclosed retraction letter to discredit a defence witness vitiates disciplinary proceedings for violating natural justice.

The petitioner, a Branch Manager of the State Bank of India at Goreswar Branch, was proceeded against departmentally on six charges concerning alleged unauthorised deposits into his joint account, diversion and misappropriation of bank funds, misuse of official powers, and loss caused to the Bank.

An earlier disciplinary enquiry culminated in dismissal, but this Court set aside the enquiry report and appellate order, holding that the petitioner ought to have been afforded an opportunity to examine Shri Hareswar Rajbongshi, a material witness.

Pursuant thereto, the witness was examined on 14.07.2017. The Enquiry Officer initially submitted a report concerning only Charges 2 and 4; the matter was thereafter remitted for consideration of the remaining charges.

During the continued enquiry, two prosecution witnesses were examined in the petitioner’s absence, and documents P.Ex-10 and P.Ex-11 were introduced. The petitioner subsequently accepted the genuineness of those documents.

After the petitioner had submitted his written brief, the Enquiry Officer received a letter dated 09.01.2018 from Shri Rajbongshi purportedly retracting his earlier testimony. The letter was not disclosed to the petitioner, who was neither given an opportunity to respond nor permitted to recall and cross-examine the witness.

The Enquiry Officer relied upon the letter to discredit the petitioner’s defence witness and found all charges proved. The Disciplinary Authority dismissed the petitioner under Rule 67(j) of the State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules, 1992, and the Appellate Authority affirmed the dismissal.

Whether reliance upon documents P.Ex-10 and P.Ex-11, introduced through prosecution witnesses examined in the petitioner’s absence and without cross-examination, vitiated the disciplinary enquiry.

Whether reliance by the Enquiry Officer upon the undisclosed retraction letter dated 09.01.2018, received after closure of evidence and submission of the petitioner’s written brief, violated the principles of natural justice and vitiated the disciplinary proceedings.

Whether the consequential dismissal and appellate orders could be sustained when they were founded upon an enquiry conducted in violation of the petitioner’s right to a fair and effective opportunity of defence.

The Court exercised judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution and applied Rules 51 and 54 of the State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules, 1992, concerning the duties of integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence, and Rule 67(j), under which dismissal could be imposed.

Rule 68 requires a delinquent officer to receive reasonable notice of evidence and materials relied upon and an opportunity to inspect documents, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and respond to subsequent evidence.

The Court applied the principles of Tirlok Nath v. Union of India, which requires access to relevant material necessary for an effective defence; Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India, which recognises the delinquent’s entitlement to relevant documents and witness statements; Santosh Kumar Singh v. Union of India, which requires an Enquiry Officer acting quasi-judicially to remain an independent adjudicator; and Hiren Chandra Talukdar v. State of Assam, which holds that documentary and oral evidence proposed to be relied upon must be disclosed in advance.

The prejudice-based approach in State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma and K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India was accepted, but distinguished where undisclosed material is used adversely and causes substantive prejudice.

The Court held that the absence of cross-examination of the two prosecution witnesses did not, by itself, invalidate the enquiry because the petitioner was later supplied P.Ex-10 and P.Ex-11, expressly accepted their genuineness, and raised no objection to their being taken on record.

However, the retraction letter stood on a different footing. It came into existence after the petitioner had completed his evidence and submitted his written brief, was never disclosed to him, and was used by the Enquiry Officer to discredit the very witness whose examination had been directed by the Court in the earlier proceedings.

Since the letter materially affected the credibility of the petitioner’s sole defence witness, fairness required disclosure of the letter and an opportunity to explain, controvert its contents, or seek recall of the witness.

The subsequent sufficiency of other evidence could not retrospectively cure the denial of a fair hearing at the enquiry stage.

The defect was therefore substantive, not merely technical, and violated the audi alteram partem principle and Rule 68.

Accordingly, the Enquiry Report dated 11.01.2018, the dismissal order dated 31.01.2018, and the appellate order dated 11.06.2018 were quashed and set aside.

As the petitioner had attained superannuation on 31.10.2021, reinstatement was not directed; instead, he was to be treated as having continued notionally in service until that date for determining service and retiral benefits.

The respondents were granted liberty, if permissible under Rule 19(3), to continue the disciplinary proceedings from the stage at which the petitioner was required to receive a fair opportunity to establish his defence.

Any fresh proceedings were to disclose all relied-upon material, permit examination and cross-examination of witnesses, remain uninfluenced by the quashed findings, and be completed within four months from receipt of the certified order.