2003 (1) TMI 692 - SC - Indian Laws

Bank Manager's Dismissal Upheld, Emphasizes Natural Justice

STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. Versus KP. NARAYANAN KUTTY

The Division Bench upheld the single Judge's decision in a case concerning a Bank Manager's dismissal. The Court emphasized the importance of providing an ... Whether an opportunity was to be provided by the disciplinary authority in case the disciplinary authority disagreed with certain findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer? Held that:- In para 19 of the judgment in Punjab National Bank case [1998 (8) TMI 594 - Supreme Court of India] when it in clearly stated that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2) (Rule 50(3)(ii) of State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, is identical in terms applicable to the present case) and the delinquent officer will have to be given an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the Enquiry Officer, we find it difficult to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the appellants that unless it is shown that some prejudice was caused to the respondent, the order of dismissal could not be set aside by the High Court. Appeal dismissed. Issues:Appeal against dismissal order, Opportunity to represent before disciplinary authority, Compliance with principles of natural justice.Analysis:The appeal was filed against the dismissal order of a Manager, Grade-I in a Bank due to allegations of misconduct and irregularities. The Enquiry Officer found some charges proved, partly proved, and not proved. The disciplinary authority agreed with some findings but disagreed on certain charges, recommending dismissal. The respondent appealed unsuccessfully and then filed a writ petition challenging the dismissal. The single Judge allowed the writ petition citing lack of opportunity given to the respondent by the disciplinary authority regarding disagreed charges, following the precedent in Punjab National Bank case. The Division Bench upheld the single Judge's decision, leading to the current appeal.The appellants argued that providing further opportunity to the respondent by the disciplinary authority was unnecessary as per service regulations, and the respondent had the chance to present his case before the Enquiry Officer. They tried to distinguish the case from Punjab National Bank, stating that the requirement for an opportunity did not apply to cases before Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan. The respondent's counsel justified the order, emphasizing the need for the opportunity as per the principles of natural justice, as established in previous cases.The Court referred to Regulation 7(2) of Punjab National Bank Officer Employee Regulations, similar to Rule 50(3)(ii) of State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules. It highlighted the necessity of providing an opportunity when the disciplinary authority disagreed with the Enquiry Officer's findings, as per the principles of natural justice. The Court rejected the appellants' argument that no prejudice was caused to the respondent, citing the importance of following due process and providing an opportunity to represent.In conclusion, the Court affirmed the decision based on the principles of natural justice and the precedent set by Punjab National Bank case. The High Court's order was upheld, granting liberty to the appellants to proceed in accordance with the law. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.