http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

         CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3544 OF 2008

      (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20242 of 2007)

Central Bank of India & Another          .. Appellants

                       Versus

Nripendra Nath Sarkar                   .. Respondent

                     JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

    Leave granted.

    This appeal is directed against the judgment dated

20.8.2007 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in APOT

No.363 of 2007.

    Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this

appeal are as under:-

                                                    1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

    The respondent was working as a Clerk with the

appellant-Bank at Calcutta. The respondent was issued

a charge-sheet for short deposit of Rs.36,990.53. An

enquiry was instituted against him and he was found

guilty and consequently he was dismissed from service.

The respondent aggrieved by the order of dismissal

preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution before the High Court.

    The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion

that the enquiry officer was biased and the proceedings

were conducted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of

the delinquent respondent. The entire proceedings except

the charge-sheet were quashed.      The appellants herein

were granted an opportunity to proceed with the matter

de novo on the same charge-sheet.

    The appeal filed against the aforesaid judgment was

dismissed by the Appellate Court with slight modification

                                                    2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

of the order affirming the decision of the learned Single

Judge.

    The   appellant-Bank     proceeded    against   the

respondent de novo appointing an enquiry officer.    The

second enquiry ultimately revealed that there has been a

loss to the bank to the tune of Rs.9,662.46 only and not

Rs.36,990.53. The enquiry officer held that the charges

have been proved.   The learned Single Judge observed

that the respondent was served with a copy of the

enquiry report. The respondent filed detailed explanation

against the enquiry report. However, the second show

cause notice was issued by the appellant-Bank again

proposing punishment of dismissal from service.

    The respondent filed the second writ petition which

came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge who

granted liberty to the appellant-Bank to proceed with the

dismissal proceedings and to pass a final order.     The

respondent was again dismissed from service.          On

                                                    3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

perusal of the said dismissal order, the learned Single

Judge found a number of infirmities in the order.

    The court observed that the disciplinary authority

without dealing with the issues raised by the respondent

rejected   the   contentions    by   observing   them       as

‘irrelevant’. According to the disciplinary authority, the

explanation offered by the respondent on enquiry report

was not satisfactory.

    The learned Single Judge on the basis of the

observations made in the earlier judgment as well as the

second enquiry report came to the conclusion that the

original charge of defalcation of Rs.36,990.53 had been

whittled down to Rs.9,662.46.         Thus, it has been

observed that there has been a dilution of the charge to a

substantial extent.     The learned Single Judge observed

that it might be possible that if there was a third enquiry

formed the amount might have been lesser.               This

according to the learned Single Judge would lead to the

                                                       4

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

conclusion that there is likelihood of faulty accounting

system. A request was made by the learned counsel for

the respondent to produce the audit report wherein the

discrepancy had surfaced. It was submitted that if the

report is produced it would show that the respondent

was given a clean chit by the audit officials. The learned

Single Judge, therefore, came to the conclusion that an

opportunity should be given to the delinquent to prefer

an appeal from the final order and directed that the

Appellate Authority may go into the question afresh in

the light of the observations made by the learned Single

Judge.    The respondent deposited the sum of Rs.

Rs.9,662.46 with the bank. This was a pre-condition of

filing an appeal. The Appellate Authority was directed to

grant personal hearing to the respondent.

    The Division Bench observed that despite orders of

the learned Single Judge, the Appellate Authority has not

decided the case according to the observations of the

court. The learned Single Judge had gone to the extent

                                                    5

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

of observing that "the Appellate Authority had scant

regard for the dignity and the finality of the observations

made by the two learned Single Judges of this court." In

spite of the contemptuous comments made by the

Appellate Authority, the learned Single Judge directed it

to take a fresh decision in the light of the observations

made by the learned Single Judge in his order dated 24th

March, 2006. The appellant-Bank filed an appeal being

APOT No. 363 of 2007 which was dismissed by the

Division Bench with the following orders :-

         "Heard the learned counsel for the           appellant. In our opinion, since the           learned Single Judge has not imposed           any punishment on the appellant, the           present     appeal    would    not    be           maintainable under section 19 of the           Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In case           the appellant is aggrieved by certain           observations made by the learned Single           Judge with regard to the merits of the           decision taken by the authorities, the           appellant would always be at liberty to           seek remedy by way of inter-court appeal           under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.           Accordingly, both the appeal and the           application are disposed of.

                                                     6

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

             All parties concerned are to act on a          signed Xerox copy of this order on the          usual undertakings."

The Division Bench with great anguish made the

following observations regarding the conduct of the

appellant-Bank. We reproduce the same as under:-

        "We see absolutely no merit in the          appeal. In our opinion, the Appellate          Authority of the appellant-Bank has been          shown a great deal of leniency by the          learned Single Judge. Even after taking          note of the unwarranted observations of          the Appellate Authority in rejecting the          appeal filed by the respondent-writ          petitioner and in a manner totally          contrary to the observations made by the          learned Single Judge, no punishment          was imposed on the Appellate Authority.          Not only no punishment, but adverse          comments were even made about the          observations made by the Appellate          Authority. Rather, another opportunity          has been given to rectify the error. Mr.          Bose submits that while dealing with an          application for contempt the Court ought          to be concerned only with the question          whether the earlier decision has received          its finality and has been complied with or          not. It would not be permissible for the          court to examine the correctness of the          earlier decision which had been assailed          and to take a view different from that

                                                     7

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

             what was taken in the earlier decision.               In support of this the learned counsel               relied on a judgment in Union of India               & Ors. v. Subedar Devassy PV (2006) 1               SCC 613.      We are of the considered               opinion that the aforesaid judgment is               not applicable in the facts and               circumstances of this case. We find no               merit in this appeal and the same is               dismissed.

                  In the interest of justice we grant               another four weeks time to the Appellate               Authority to decide the appeal in               accordance with the observations made               by the learned Single Judge in the order               dated 24th March, 2006 and the               observations made by this Court in this               appeal."

    The appellant-Bank instead of complying with the

directions of the Division Bench has again approached

this court.

    We have heard the learned counsel for the parties

at length.      It was submitted before the court by the

appellant-Bank that where there is no allegation of

procedural      irregularity   or   illegality   or   violation   of

statutory rules prescribed in the mode of enquiry, the

                                                             8

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

High Court cannot upset the well-reasoned order of

dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority.     It was

also submitted by the appellant-Bank that in the enquiry

proceedings, a case of financial irregularity was detected

and the court ought not to have interfered with the order

of dismissal.

    We have carefully perused the entire record of the

case and all the proceedings before various courts. The

Division   Bench   in   the   impugned   judgment    while

dismissing the appeal gave four weeks time to the

Appellate Authority to decide the appeal in accordance

with the observations made by the learned Single Judge

in the order dated 24th March, 2006 and the observations

made by the Division Bench.

    In the facts and circumstances of this case, the

observations made in the impugned judgment are

absolutely just and fair.     The Appellate Authority is

directed to carry out the direction given by the learned

                                                     9

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

Single Judge and the Division Bench in its true spirits.

We find no infirmity in the directions given by the

Division Bench in the impugned judgment.

    The appellant instead of approaching this court

ought to have complied with the directions of the

Division Bench. This appeal being devoid of any merit is

dismissed with costs.

                             ...................................J.                                 (Tarun Chatterjee)

                             ..................................J.                                (Dalveer Bhandari) New Delhi; May 13, 2008

                                                            10