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

PETITIONER: S.K. SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       19/09/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This petition  is filed  against the  judgment  of  the Division Bench  of the  Madhya Pradesh  High Court,  Gwalior Bench made on March 13, 1996 in L.P.A. No. 80/96.      The  admitted  position  is  that  the  petitioner  was working as a Branch Manager in the respondent-Bank. A sum of Rs. 20,000/-  was found  to be  short in cash of the Branch. Therefore, disciplinary  proceedings were  initiated against him and  an enquiry  was conducted  and he  was removal from service. He  challenged the  order of  his removal in appeal which was dismissed; the writ petition filed by him was also dismissed by  the learned single Judge of the High Court and on appeal,  it was confirmed.       The only controversy raised in the High Court was that as he  was not supplied with the copy of the enquiry report, the order  of dismissal  was bad  in law. The learned Single Judge as  well as  the Division Bench of the High Court have considered the  effect of  the judgment  of the Constitution Bench of  this Court  in Managing  Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors.  v. B.  Karunakar and  Ors.[(19930 4  SCC 727]. The learned single  Judge as  well as  the Division Bench of the High Court had asked the petitioner as to what prejudice the petitioner had  suffered for non-supply thereof. Since there was no  adequate explanation  offered by the petitioner, the High Court  came t  the conclusion, that though  the copy of the  report was not supplied, on  the facts, as no prejudice was proved, it was not a case warranting interference.      It is  contended by  Sri Khanduja,  learned counsel for the petitioner  that since  Court has laid down the law that supply of  copy of the enquiry report is a pre-condition for a competent  officer to  take  a  disciplinary  action,  the appropriate course  would have been to send back the case to the disciplinary  authority. For this course, normally there is no quarrel, as this Court had settled the law that a copy of the  report  needs  to  be  supplied  to  the  delinquent employee to  enable him  to make  representation against the proposed action or punishment and, thereafter, the authority is required  to consider  that explanation  offered  by  the punishment. In  this case, though copy of the report was not supplied, he  was asked  by the learned Single Judge as well

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

as by the Division Bench as to what prejudice he suffered on account of  non-supply of the report; but he was not able to satisfy the learned Judges as to the prejudice caused to him on account  of non-supply  of the  enquiry  report.  On  the facts, we  find that  there is no illegality in the decision taken by the High Court.      The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.