2006 (1) TMI 607 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court clarifies specific charges, upholds reliance on CBI statements, reinstates removal order

The Supreme Court held that the charges against the appellant were specific and not vague. Non-supply of certain documents did not prejudice the appellant ... Whether charges framed against the appellant-delinquent officer are vague? Whether non-supply of the documents sought by the appellant vitiated the enquiry and the action of the management of the respondent Bank in removing the appellant from service as a disciplinary measure? Whether placing reliance on statements previously recorded by CBI by the Enquiry Officer has vitiated the enquiry? Whether the findings of fact recorded by the Enquiry Officer are perverse for want of legal evidence? Issues Involved:1. Whether the charges framed against the appellant-delinquent officer are vague.2. Whether non-supply of the documents sought by the appellant vitiated the enquiry and the action of the management of the respondent Bank in removing the appellant from service as a disciplinary measure.3. Whether placing reliance on statements previously recorded by CBI by the Enquiry Officer has vitiated the enquiry.4. Whether the findings of fact recorded by the Enquiry Officer are perverse for want of legal evidence.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Vagueness of ChargesThe Division Bench decided that the charges framed against the appellant-delinquent officer were not vague. The charges were specific and detailed, outlining the misconduct and the period during which the alleged acts occurred. The charges included obtaining loan applications under false pretenses, misappropriating loan proceeds, and colluding with other bank staff to sanction and arrange loans fraudulently.Issue 2: Non-Supply of DocumentsThe Division Bench found that the non-supply of documents sought by the appellant vitiated the enquiry. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the documents not supplied were neither part of the charges nor relied upon by the prosecution. The Court emphasized that only material and relevant documents necessary for the defense need to be supplied. The Court cited precedents like *Krishna Chandra Tandon Vs. The Union of India* and *Chandrama Tewari vs. Union of India*, which clarified that non-supply of documents not relied upon by the Enquiry Officer does not prejudice the delinquent officer.Issue 3: Reliance on CBI StatementsThe Division Bench decided that placing reliance on statements previously recorded by CBI did not vitiate the enquiry. The Supreme Court upheld this view, indicating that the Enquiry Officer's reliance on such statements was appropriate and did not prejudice the appellant.Issue 4: Perversity of FindingsThe Division Bench found that the findings of fact recorded by the Enquiry Officer were not perverse. The Supreme Court concurred, noting that the Enquiry Officer's findings were based on substantial evidence, including oral testimonies and documentary evidence.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the non-supply of documents not forming part of the charges or relied upon by the prosecution did not prejudice the delinquent officer. The Court emphasized that principles of natural justice were not violated as the appellant had ample opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and examine relevant documents. The Court restored the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 29.7.1989, removing the respondent from service, and quashed the orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.