IN THE SUPREME COURT OF  INDIA          CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3233    OF 2005

STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. ..  APPELLANTS

vs.

RANJIT KUMAR CHAKRABORTY & ANR. ..  RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

We have gone through the order passed by the Division Bench of the

Calcutta High Court and we are in full agreement with the same.

The respondent was charge-sheeted and an informal enquiry was held

against  him  and  he  was  found  guilty  of  all  the  charges  except  one  charge.

However, the Disciplinary Authority was not competent to pass a major penalty.

Therefore, all the papers were placed before the competent authority for passing

the  major  penalty.   The  Appointing  Authority  passed  the  major  penalty  of

dismissal from service without hearing delinquent.

 This was challenged by filing a writ petition before the High Court of

Calcutta.  Learned Single  Judge dismissed the petition and  the appeal filed by the

delinquent is succeeded. The Court interpreted the Rule 68(3)(iii) which reads as

under:

-2-

“If  the  Disciplinary  Authority,  having  regard  to  its findings on all or any of the articles of charge, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in rule 67 should be imposed on the officer,  it shall,  notwithstanding anything contained in sub- rule (4), make  an order imposing such penalty.

Provided that where the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion  that  the  penalty  to  be  imposed  is  any  of  the  major penalties specified in clauses (e), (f), (g) and (h) of rule 67 and it is lower  in  rank  to  the  Appointing  Authority  in  respect  of  the category of officers to which the officer belongs, it shall submit to the Appointing Authority the records of the enquiry specified in clause (xxi) (b) of sub-rule (2), together with its recommendations regarding the penalty that may be imposed and the Appointing Authority  shall  make  an  order  imposing  such  penalty  as  it considers in its opinion appropriate.”

In this case the respondent was punished with a major penalty was not

heard.   Therefore,  the  order  of  removal  was  set  aside.   We  have  been  taken

through the Rule 68(3)(iii) and we are in full agreement with the view taken by the

High Court.  When the Disciplinary Authority is not competent to pass a major

penalty, that is, of the removal or other major penalty prescribed in the Rule,  the

papers  are required to be placed by the Disciplinary Authority to the Appointing

Authority  who  is  competent  to  pass  a  major  penalty.  In  the  present  case

Disciplinary Authority was not  

-3-

competent  to  pass  major  penalty,  therefore,   matter  was  placed  before  the

Appointing Authority & Appointing Authority passed major penalty of dismissal

without hearing delinquent. Such order which is on the face of it is against the

principles of natural justice, cannot be countenanced as it is void ab initio.   The

proviso  certainly  says  that  the  Appointing  Authority,  on  the  recommendation

given by the Disciplinary Authority, shall be competent to pass the major penalty.

Simply by recommending the matter and sending the papers to the Appointing

Authority, does not mean that the incumbent who is going to be served with the

major penalty is not required to be heard in the matter.  It is now settled principle

that where ever the Rule is silent the principles of natural justice  shall be read in

it.   A hearing should be given to a person who is being punished with a major

penalty.  Therefore, the principle of natural justice has to be read in this Rule. A

notice  ought  to have been  issued  to the  delinquent  by  the  Authority  to  whom

papers were sent to show cause why the major penalty may not be imposed on  

-4-

him.  It is true  that the competent authority could pass the order of major penalty

but not without hearing the incumbent.  Therefore, in this context of the matter,

we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Division Bench of the Calcutta

High Court is correct and there is no ground for interference in this appeal.

 Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

          ....................J.            (A.K. MATHUR)

         .....................J.           (P. SATHASIVAM)

NEW DELHI; JULY 30, 2008.