Case Note & Summary
The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a service dispute between a bank employee and The West Bengal State Cooperative Bank Limited. The respondent employee was subjected to departmental proceedings. A charge-sheet was issued on 11.5.1981. After the employee replied, a regular departmental enquiry was held and the enquiry officer submitted a report. The disciplinary authority accepted the report and issued a further show cause notice dated 13.8.1981 asking why dismissal should not be imposed, enclosing a copy of the enquiry report. The employee challenged that notice by filing a writ petition but withdrew it after the final dismissal order was passed. He then challenged the dismissal under Article 226 of the Constitution. A learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court set aside the enquiry proceedings on 12.6.1986 and allowed the writ petition with liberty to proceed afresh. The Bank appealed to the Division Bench in F.M.A.T. No. 1834/1986. The Division Bench on 29.1.1987 modified the Single Judge's order, upholding the disciplinary proceedings up to the stage of issuance of the second show cause notice and directing the disciplinary authorities to decide afresh whether a second show cause notice should be issued, giving the employee an opportunity to explain. Since the enquiry report was already with the employee, the disciplinary authority called upon him to submit an explanation in writing within one month. Despite reminders, the employee did not give any explanation on the findings, instead contending that the notices did not conform to the Division Bench's direction. The authority passed a dismissal order dated 7.3.1989. The employee again challenged dismissal; a Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, finding full opportunity was given. The employee appealed in F.M.A.T. No. 1182 of 1992, and the Division Bench set aside the punishment, holding that there was nothing on record to show the authority had taken a decision pursuant to the earlier liberty regarding whether a second show cause notice was required, and that the order was passed without issuing any second show cause notice. The Bank appealed to the Supreme Court. The appellant argued that factually show cause notices were given after the earlier Division Bench decision and the employee failed to avail them, so the Division Bench's assumption was incorrect. The respondent initially denied supply of the enquiry report but later admitted it, contending that the earlier direction was not complied with. The Supreme Court rejected this. It found that factually the employee was supplied with a copy of the enquiry report and was called upon to submit his explanation in light of the earlier Division Bench judgment. The employee, instead of submitting an explanation, found fault with the form of notice and raised irrelevant contentions. The Court held that reasonable opportunity was given before imposing dismissal, and the Division Bench was not justified in setting aside the order on the sole ground that no second show cause notice was issued. It referred to Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others v. B. Karunakar & Others, 1993 (4) SCC 727 but did not decide whether a second show cause notice was at all necessary after the 42nd Amendment. The appeal was allowed, the Division Bench judgment dated 3.9.1993 was set aside, and the Single Judge's order was restored with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Natural Justice - Second Show Cause Notice and Reasonable Opportunity - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - Disciplinary proceedings against bank employee involved issuance of charge-sheet, departmental enquiry, supply of enquiry report, and subsequent show cause notice against proposed punishment; employee was given opportunity to respond but failed to submit explanation. Supreme Court held that reasonable opportunity was afforded; Division Bench erred in setting aside dismissal on erroneous factual finding that no second show cause notice was issued. Held that on facts, notice was given and employee was not diligent, so dismissal restored (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in setting aside the dismissal order dated 7.3.1989 on the ground that no second show cause notice was issued, when factually the employee had been supplied with the enquiry report and given an opportunity to respond.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench dated 3.9.1993 set aside; order of the learned Single Judge restored; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Reasonable opportunity in departmental proceedings includes supply of enquiry report and opportunity to respond to proposed punishment
- an employee cannot complain of violation of natural justice when he fails to avail the given opportunity
- a Division Bench cannot set aside a dismissal based on erroneous factual assumption that no second show cause notice was issued
- no second show cause notice is necessary after the 42nd Amendment per Managing Director
- ECIL
- Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar
- but not decided in this case
