2003 (3) TMI 664 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the applicant can be compelled to prove that the outcome will be in his favour or he has to prove a case of substance or if he can prove a real likelihood of success or if he is entitled to relief even if there is some remote chance of success? Whether principles of natural justice have been violated? Held that - Appeal allowed by way of remand. Case of the parties on merits was not considered by Learned Single Judge or the Division Bench. Notwithstanding the fact that there was no consideration of the respective cases, Learned Single Judge directed examination of the documents by the expert. The inevitable result is that the judgment of the Division Bench confirming that of the Learned Single Judge has to be quashed so far as it relates to the question of violation of principles of natural justice. But that is not the end of the matter. There was no consideration of the merits of the case as noted above. It would be in the fitness of things to direct examination of the documents by the expert in terms of Learned Single Judge s order. The employee shall file originals of the documents on which he relies upon, of which copies were placed before the High Court.

Issues Involved:
1. Scope and ambit of Regulation 6(18) and 6(21) of the Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations 1976.
2. Validity of the disciplinary proceedings and the dismissal order.
3. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Examination and authenticity of disputed documents.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Scope and Ambit of Regulation 6(18) and 6(21):
The judgment primarily revolves around interpreting Regulation 6(18) and 6(21) of the Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations 1976. Regulation 6(18) allows the Inquiring Authority to hear the Presenting Officer and the Officer employee or permit them to file written briefs within 15 days of the completion of the production of evidence. Regulation 6(21) details the contents and forwarding of the inquiry report, including written briefs if any.

2. Validity of the Disciplinary Proceedings and the Dismissal Order:
The disciplinary proceedings involved multiple charge-sheets against the employee, with the primary contention being the non-vacation of residential quarters and the submission of allegedly fabricated documents. The disciplinary authority dismissed the employee, which was initially set aside by the High Court, leading to reinstatement and further inquiries. The employee was again dismissed after subsequent inquiries, leading to further legal challenges.

3. Alleged Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The High Court found a violation of natural justice, stating that the Inquiry Officer allowed the Presenting Officer to file written briefs but did not give the employee a similar opportunity, violating Regulation 6(18). The Supreme Court, however, clarified that Regulation 6(18) does not mandate sequential filing of written briefs and that both parties could file their briefs independently. The Court emphasized that natural justice principles are flexible and context-dependent, aiming to ensure fair play rather than rigid adherence to procedural formalities.

4. Examination and Authenticity of Disputed Documents:
The case involved disputed documents allegedly fabricated by the employee. The High Court directed these documents to be examined by a Government Handwriting and Questioned Documents Expert. The Supreme Court upheld this direction, stating that if the documents were found to be forged, the dismissal would stand. Conversely, if the documents were genuine, the dismissal would be vacated. The Court instructed both parties to submit original documents for examination, emphasizing that no other issues should be considered by the High Court.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal to the extent that the High Court's conclusions on the violation of natural justice were quashed. The case was remanded for the examination of the disputed documents by an expert, with the outcome determining the validity of the dismissal order. The Court reiterated the importance of substance over form in administering justice, highlighting that procedural deficiencies could be cured by subsequent fair hearings if no prejudice was shown.

← Previous Next →