1983 (10) TMI 232 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether Rule 50 of the State Bank of India (Officers and Assistants) Service Rules in force at the relevant time has been complied with or not? Held that - Appeal dismissed. In the instant case though reasons have not been expressly stated, these reasons were implicit namely, the nature of the charges, the explanation offered and the reply of the appellant to the show cause notice. These appear from a fair reading of the order impugned in this case. It, further, appears that there was consideration of those facts and the decision was arrived at after consideration of those reasons. It is manifest, therefore, that absence of any denial by the appellant, indeed admissions of the factual basis and nature of the explanation offered by the appellant were considered by the authority to merit the imposition of the penalty of dismissal. Such a conclusion could not, in the facts and circumstances of the case, be considered to be unreasonable or one which no reasonable man could make.

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice.
2. Compliance with Rule 50 of the State Bank of India (Officers & Assistants) Service Rules.
3. Requirement of due compliance with principles of natural justice under Rule 50.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant argued that the principles of natural justice were violated during the enquiry, as he was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself. Specifically, he contended that materials against him were gathered in his absence, he was not allowed to cross-examine witnesses, and evidence against him was not recorded in his presence. The Court acknowledged that the rules of natural justice imply an opportunity for the delinquent officer to present evidence or deny charges against him. However, the Court found that the appellant was involved in the preliminary investigation, was informed of the charges, and given an opportunity to explain. The appellant did not dispute the facts or request to cross-examine witnesses, and he was given a personal hearing. Therefore, the Court concluded that there was no violation of natural justice principles in this case.

2. Compliance with Rule 50 of the State Bank of India (Officers & Assistants) Service Rules:
Rule 50 outlines the procedure for conducting an enquiry against an employee. The appellant contended that Rule 50 was not followed, as he was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself. The Court reviewed the relevant rules and found that the requirements of Rule 50 were met. The appellant was given a brief statement of charges, an opportunity to submit a written statement in defense, and a personal hearing. The investigation report, along with the appellant's statement, was considered by the appropriate authority before making a decision. The Court noted that the appellant did not dispute the factual basis of the charges and had admitted to certain irregularities. Therefore, the Court held that Rule 50 was complied with in this case.

3. Requirement of Due Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice under Rule 50:
The appellant argued that even if the rules were not statutory, they should comply with the principles of natural justice. The Court agreed with the basic premise that principles of natural justice should be followed in domestic enquiries involving termination of service. However, the Court found that the investigation and subsequent actions were consistent with the principles of natural justice. The appellant was informed of the charges, given an opportunity to explain, and was heard in person. The Court emphasized that the principles of natural justice are flexible and depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In this instance, the Court found no real prejudice was caused to the appellant by the procedure followed.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no violation of the principles of natural justice or non-compliance with Rule 50. The appellant was given a fair opportunity to defend himself, and the investigation was conducted in accordance with the rules. The Court, however, suggested that the Bank might consider offering the appellant some form of employment, given his prior service record and the fact that no actual loss was caused to the Bank.

← Previous Next →