Supreme Court sets aside bank manager's dismissal order for breach of natural justice

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the dismissal order of the appellant, a bank manager, due to a breach of natural justice in the inquiry process. The Court directed the respondent-bank to conduct a fresh inquiry, allowing the appellant to cross-examine witnesses. The appellant was to remain suspended, receive subsistence allowance, and cooperate in the expedited inquiry process. No costs were imposed on either party.

---

---

Issues:
1. Dismissal from service on grounds of breach of natural justice.
2. Denial of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
3. Requirement to produce witnesses without assistance.
4. Setting aside inquiry proceedings and directing a fresh inquiry.

Analysis:
The appellant, a Manager at a bank, was dismissed from service, leading to a writ petition in the High Court. The Single Judge allowed the petition, citing a breach of natural justice in the dismissal order. However, the Division Bench overturned this decision, prompting the appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court. The disciplinary authority relied on a comprehensive report and certificates from bank officers, but the appellant was not given the chance to cross-examine these witnesses, leading to a denial of reasonable defense opportunity.

The appellant also claimed that he was unable to examine certain bank officers as witnesses due to the management's requirement that he produce them without assistance. However, the appellant failed to specify any such persons during the hearing, resulting in this grievance being dismissed. Due to the identified infirmity in the inquiry process, the Supreme Court ordered the inquiry proceedings to be set aside from the stage of the enquiry report. The respondent-bank was directed to conduct a fresh inquiry, allowing the appellant to cross-examine the key witnesses involved in the case.

As part of the directive, the appellant was to remain under suspension, receive subsistence allowance, and report to the Zonal Manager for further instructions. The Court emphasized the need for cooperation to expedite the inquiry process, aiming for completion by a specified timeline. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the dismissal order and granting relief to the appellant in the terms specified, without imposing any costs on either party.

---