Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from disciplinary proceedings against a bank manager employed by State Bank of Patiala. The manager faced two charges: temporary misappropriation of Rs.10,000 received from a borrower's son and issuance of an undated letter to a Tehsildar for revocation of mutation without the crop loan being adjusted. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by two bank officers, who recorded statements including that of the complainant Balwant Singh and the village Patwari Kaur Singh. Subsequently, a regular oral enquiry was held where six bank witnesses and three defence witnesses were examined. Balwant Singh did not appear at the regular enquiry despite attempts. The enquiry officer found both charges proved, leading to the manager's removal from service. His appeal and review were dismissed. He filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that the removal was void. The Trial Court found violation of Regulation 68(2)(b)(iii) because the list of witnesses and documents was not supplied with the charge-sheet, and copies of documents were not provided by the presenting officer. It decreed the suit. The Appellate Court affirmed, noting that a provisional list was supplied but copies of documents P-3 to P-11 (including statements of Kaur Singh and Balwant Singh) were not furnished; the manager was only allowed to peruse them half an hour before enquiry. The Appellate Court held this prejudiced his defence. The High Court dismissed the bank's second appeal, adding that non-examination of Balwant Singh rendered the case one of no evidence. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court first rejected the High Court's additional ground, holding that because six witnesses including the preliminary enquiry officers and the Patwari were examined, and the complainant's statement was proved through those officers, it was not a case of no evidence. On the main issue, the Court examined Regulation 68(2)(b)(iii), which requires furnishing copies of prior statements of witnesses not later than three days before commencement of examination. The factual record showed that although copies were not supplied, the manager was allowed to peruse the documents and statements on June 2, 1987, and the bank witnesses were examined on July 6 and 7, 1987, more than three days later. The Court observed that sub-clause (iii) only covers statements of witnesses, not documents; for documents the regulation only provides a right to inspect and take notes, which was done. The manager did not raise any objection about inadequate opportunity to cross-examine; his only objection was that some documents were photostat copies. The Court held that the purpose of the rule is to enable effective cross-examination, and in the circumstances there was substantial compliance with the regulation. It reiterated that every violation of procedural rules does not automatically vitiate an enquiry unless prejudice is shown. The Court concluded that the enquiry and punishment were not vitiated. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the bank's appeal, set aside the judgments of the lower courts, and upheld the removal of the manager from service.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Natural Justice - State Bank of Patiala (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979, Regulation 68(2)(b)(iii) - The regulation requires supplying copies of statements of witnesses recorded earlier not later than three days before commencement of examination of witnesses by inquiring authority - Non-supply of such statements does not automatically vitiate enquiry if delinquent officer was allowed to peruse and take notes well before witness examination and no prejudice is shown - Held that substantial compliance with the regulation and absence of protest about inadequate cross-examination opportunity indicate no violation of natural justice (Paras Not mentioned). B) Service Law - Evidence - No Evidence Rule - Non-examination of complainant does not make case of no evidence when other witnesses, including preliminary enquiry officers and patwari, proved charges - Held that High Court's additional ground of no evidence is unsustainable (Paras Not mentioned). C) Civil Procedure - Judicial Review - Scope of Review - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is same whether by writ petition or civil suit - Courts cannot re-appreciate evidence but only check procedural compliance and perversity - Held that violation of procedural rules requires showing of prejudice (Paras Not mentioned). D) Service Law - Departmental Enquiry - Prior Statements of Witnesses - Purpose of furnishing copies is to enable effective cross-examination - If delinquent had opportunity to peruse statements, taken notes, and witnesses examined after more than three days, there is substantial compliance with requirement - Held that literal compliance may be dispensed if no prejudice caused (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether non-furnishing of copies of statements of witnesses recorded during preliminary enquiry, in violation of Regulation 68(2)(b)(iii) of State Bank of Patiala (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979, vitiates the disciplinary enquiry; and whether non-examination of complainant amounts to no evidence.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the High Court and lower courts, and upheld the removal of the respondent from service. The Court held that non-examination of complainant was not a case of no evidence, and that there was substantial compliance with Regulation 68(2)(b)(iii) without any prejudice to the respondent.
Law Points
- Natural justice principles in departmental enquiries are flexible
- violation of procedural rules does not automatically vitiate enquiry unless prejudice shown
- substantial compliance with Regulation 68(2)(b)(iii) is sufficient
- non-examination of complainant is not 'no evidence' if other witnesses establish charges
- judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited to procedural compliance and perversity.
