http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: BANK OF INDIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: APURBA SAHA

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/12/1994

BENCH: VENKATACHALA N. (J) BENCH: VENKATACHALA N. (J) AHMADI, A.M. (J)

CITATION:  1994 SCC  (2) 615        JT 1993  Supl.    188  1993 SCALE  (4)659

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATACHALA, J.- Leave is granted.  Learned counsel on both sides are heard. 2.Order of Orissa High Court setting aside the order made by  the appellant-Bank of India discharging  the  respondent from its employment has been impugned in this appeal. +From  the Judgment and Order dated November 5, 1992  of the Orissa High Court in O.J.C. No. 3627 of 1989 616 3.In   the  year  1981,  the  appellant-Bank  ordered   a departmental  enquiry  against  the respondent,  who  was  a Clerk-cum-Cashier in its Suliapada Branch in accordance with clause  19.5(j)  of  the First  Bipartite  Settlement  dated October  19,  1966.  The respondent was called upon  by  the Enquiry Officer to answer the charges of misconduct levelled against  him.  The respondent, instead of filing  a  written explanation  answering the charges, denied them orally.   He did not cross-examine the witnesses of the Bank as and  when each  of them was examined-in-chief.  He wanted the  Enquiry Officer  to  complete the examination-in-chief  of  all  the Bank’s   witnesses  and  make  them  available  for   cross- examination  at once.  Since the Enquiry Officer wanted  the respondent  or  his  representative  to  cross-examine   the witnesses of the Bank as and when each of them was examined- in-chief, both of them boycotted the inquiry.  The copies of the  evidence  of Bank’s witnesses recorded by  the  Enquiry Officer   in   the  absence  of  the  respondent   and   his representative,  were, however, sent to the  respondent  and his  representative.  Thereafter, the Enquiry  Officer  also sent  letters  to the respondent and his  representative  to file  his written arguments, if any.  Recorded evidence  and letters  of  the Enquiry Officer although  received  by  the respondent  and  his representative, they did  not  respond. The  Enquiry Officer prepared his report of inquiry, on  the basis of evidence recorded by him.  In that report he  found

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

the  respondent guilty of the charges levelled  against  him and sent the same to the Disciplinary Authority.  The  Zonal Manager,  Orissa  Zone,  who  was  to  act  as  Disciplinary Authority,  agreed with the findings of the Enquiry  Report. Consequently,   he  issued  a  show  cause  notice  to   the respondent  calling  upon  him to show cause as  to  why  he should not be dismissed from the Bank’s service on the basis of the Inquiry findings which were accepted by him.  In  the reply  sent  to  this  show-cause  notice,  the   respondent requested  for  exonerating him from  the  charges  levelled against him.  But the Disciplinary Authority, which did  not accept  the reply, ordered discharge of the respondent  from appellant-Bank’s service with one month’s pay and allowances purporting  to  act  under  clause  19(5)(j)  of  the  First Bipartite  Settlement  and  made  an  order  accordingly  on November  2, 1987.  Appeal of the respondent  filed  against that  order before the Appellate Authority was dismissed  on February  4, 1989.  The Orissa High Court by its order  made in  a writ petition filed by the respondent, found that  the principles of natural justice were violated in the course of holding the disciplinary proceedings against the  respondent and  set aside the orders of the Disciplinary Authority  and the Appellate Authority. 4.Having  regard  to the arguments addressed  by  learned counsel  on both sides we have gone through the  papers  and seen that the High Court’s view that there was violation  of principles   of   natural   justice,   in   conducting   the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent, was  wholly unjustified.   The records of the  disciplinary  proceedings show  that the respondent had avoided filing of the  written explanation  for the charges of misconduct levelled  against him and also had for no valid reason refused to  participate in  the disciplinary proceedings.  A bank employee  who  had refused to avail of the 617 opportunities  provided to him in a disciplinary  proceeding of  defending  himself  against the  charges  of  misconduct involving his integrity and dishonesty, cannot be  permitted to  complain  later  that he had been  denied  a  reasonable opportunity  of  defending himself of the  charges  levelled against  him  and  the  disciplinary  proceeding   conducted against  him by the Bank employer had resulted in  violation of principles of natural justice of fair hearing. 5.Hence we are constrained to hold that the order of  the High  Court  impugned  in  this  appeal  is  liable  to   be interfered with and set aside. 6.We,  therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the  order of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondent in the High Court. 7. However, in the facts of the case, we make no order as to costs. 618