http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: THE WEST BENGAL STATE COOPERATIVEBANK LIMITED & OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: PARITOSH BAGCHI & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT19/10/1995

BENCH: VENKATASWAMI K. (J) BENCH: VENKATASWAMI K. (J) VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  (6) 562        1995 SCALE  (6)83

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T K. Venkataswami. J.      Leave granted. Heard Counsel on both sides. This appeal is preferred  against the  judgment and order dated 3.9.1993 passed in F.M.A.T. No. 1182 on the file of the High Court of Calcutta.      The  first   respondent  was  in  the  service  of  the appellant Bank.  A  charge-sheet  was  issued  on  11.5.1981 against him  calling upon the first respondent to show cause against the charges brought against him. On receipt of reply to the  show cause notice a regular departmental enquiry was held and  the Enquiry officer submitted a report. Thereafter the disciplinary  authority  accepting  the  enguiry  report issued a  further show  cause notice dated 13.8.1981 why the punishment of  dismissal should  bot be  imposed upon him in the light  of the  enquiry report and findings thereon which were accepted  by him.  It must be noted that alongwith this notice, the copy of the enquiry report was also enclosed.      The first  respondent challenged the issuance of second show  cause  notice  itself  by  filling  a  writ  petition. However, He  withdrew the  same as  before the writ petition could be  taken up  for hearing,  the final order dismissing the first respondent was passed by the Management.      The first  respondent  then  challenged  the  order  of dismissal by  moving the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of  India. A  learned Single  Judge of the High Court  by  order  dated  12.6.1986  set  aside  the  enquiry proceedings and  consequently allowed the writ petition with liberty to  proceed  against  the  first  respondent  afresh according to law.      The appellants  not satisfied  with the  crder  of  the learned Single  Judge preferred  an appeal  to the  Division Bench in  F.M.A.T. No.  1834/1986.  The  Division  Bench  by judgment and order dated 29.1.1987 modified the order of the learned  Single   Judge  by   upholding   the   disciplinary proceedings putto the state of issuance of second show cause

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

notice. The learned Judges observed as follows :-      "It would be open to the disciplinary      authorities to proceed afresh and to      decide whether a second show cause      notice should be issued upon the writ      petitioner against the penalty which may      be proposed  to be imposed. In case such      show cause notice is issued, the writ      petitioner would be at liberty to submit      his explanation. Upon consideration of      the relevant matters, the disciplinary      authorities will pass orders in      accordance with law."      Inasmuch as  a copy of the enquiry report was available with  the   petitioner,  the  disciplinary  authority  after referring the above said Division Bench judgment called upon the first  respondent to  submit his  explanation in writing within one  month from  the date of receipt thereof. Inspite of the  reminders given  to the first respondent, he did not choose to give to the first respondent, he did not choose to give any  explanation dealing  with the findings rendered by the enquiry  officer accepted by the disciplinary authority. On the  other hand,  the firs  respondent treated  the  show cause notices  as not in conformity with the direction given by the  Division Bench  of the High Court while disposing of F.M.A.T.  1834   of  1986.   After  duly   considering   the representations, authority imposed a penalty of dismissal by order dated 7.3.1989.      The first  respondent again  challenged  the  order  of dismissal by  filing a  writ petition and the learned Single Judge found  that full opportunities were given to the first respondent to  offer any  explanation he wanted to offer and he was  satisfied with  the reasonable  opportunity given to the first respondent in the light of the observarions of the Division Bench referred to above. Consequently, he dismissed the writ  petition. The  first respondent  aggrieved by  the dismissal of  the writ petition preferred  F.M.A.T. No. 1182 of 1992.      The learned  Judges after referring to the observations of the previous Division Bench held as follows :-      "There is nothing on record that the      authority concerned had taken a decision      pursuant to the liberty given by the      earlier Division Bench with regard to      whether second show cause notice      requirement of giving show cause notice,      if this is a part of the principles of      natural justice cannot be curtailed or      abridged by any order passed by the      Court... As  we are of the view that the      order of punishment was passed without      issuing any second show cause notice,      the order of punishment dated 7th March,      1989 passed by the disciplinary      authority cannot  stand and accordingly,      the order  of the learned trial Judge is      set aside."      The  Division  Bench,  however,  gave  liberty  to  the appellants to  proceed afresh  only after  giving the second show cause notice against the proposed punishment.      Learned counsel  for  the  appellant  after  taking  to through  the  paper  book  submitted  that  factually  after disposal of  the appeal  by the  Division Bench  on Bench on earlier occasion, show cause notices were given to the first respondent and  it is  first respondent  who failed to avail

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

the opportunities  given to  him.  Therefore,  according  to learned counsel,  the assumption  of the learned Judges that there was  no further  show cause notice before the impugned punishment was  imposed was  not correct  and therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.      Learned counsel  appearing  for  the  first  respondent though initially  denied that  the first respondent was ever supplied with  the report  of the  enguiry  officer,  subse- quently admitted  the supply  of the  report of  the enquiry officer. However,  he contended  that the direction given by the Division  Bench on the earliel occasion. We do not think that we  can accept  this contention  of the learned counsel for the  first respondent.  We have  see factually the first respondent was supplied with the copy of the enquiry report. He was called upon to submit his explanation in the light of earlier  Division   Bench  judgment.  The  first  respondent instead of  submitting his  explanation found fault with the form of  notice and  raised contentions  not relevant to the issued.      In the  circumstances and  on facts,  we are  satisfied that the  first respondent  was given reasonable opportunity before imposing  the penalty  of dismissal  and the Division Bench was  not justified  in  setting  aside  the  order  of dismissal on  the sole  ground that there was no second show cause notice issued before the impugned order was passed.      Though the  question whether  second show  cause notice was at all necessary having regard to the dated of dismissal order and  having regard  to pronouncements  of this Court’s judgment in  Managing Director,  ECIL, Hyderabad  and others vs. B.  Karunakar &  Others 1993  (4) SCC 727 was raised and argued, we  do not propose to go into it in view of the fact that factually  a second  show cause notice was give and the first respondent  was  not  diligent  enough  to  avail  the opportunity.      In the  result, the  appeal is  allowed,  the  impugned judgment and  order of the Division Bench dated 3.9. 1993 is set aside  and that of the learned Single Judge is restored. However, there will be no order as to costs.