2018 (2) TMI 2061 - SC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - fair opportunity to defend provided or not - misconduct within the purview of the Conduct Regulations applicable to bank employees - HELD THAT - An employee is entitled to subsistence allowance during an inquiry pending against him or her but if that employee is starved of finances by zero payment it would be unreasonable to expect the employee to meaningfully participate in a departmental inquiry. Access to justice is a valuable right available to every person even to a criminal and indeed free legal representation is provided even to a criminal. In the case of a departmental inquiry the delinquent is at best guilty of a misconduct but that is no ground to deny access to pension (wherever applicable) or subsistence allowance (wherever applicable). As far as Shukla is concerned he was denied his pension as well as subsistence allowance which prevented him from effectively participating in the disciplinary inquiry. On this ground as well the proceedings against Shukla are vitiated. There are no hesitation in dismissing the appeal filed by the Bank also on the ground that the punishment of dismissal could not have been imposed on Shukla after his superannuation. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Fair opportunity in a departmental inquiry.
2. Allegations against the respondent regarding financial misconduct.
3. Delay in issuing a charge sheet.
4. Denial of financial resources affecting the defense in the inquiry.

Issue 1: Fair opportunity in a departmental inquiry
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of access to justice in a departmental inquiry, highlighting that the respondent was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself due to the denial of financial resources. The Court emphasized that the respondent was unfairly treated by not providing adequate resources for his defense during the inquiry. The judgment noted that the respondent was dismissed from service based on the charges without a fair chance to present his side effectively.

Issue 2: Allegations against the respondent regarding financial misconduct
The Court examined the allegations against the respondent, focusing on a specific incident where he issued a cheque without sufficient funds in his account. The charges included issues related to financial integrity and violation of bank regulations. The Court analyzed the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the cheque and the subsequent actions taken by the respondent, including the 'stop payment' directive. The Court ultimately concluded that the actions of the respondent did not amount to misconduct under the applicable bank regulations.

Issue 3: Delay in issuing a charge sheet
The Supreme Court criticized the significant delay of about 7 years in issuing a charge sheet against the respondent. The Court deemed the unexplained delay by the Bank as unreasonable and unacceptable. The judgment highlighted that the delay undermined the fairness of the disciplinary proceedings and affected the respondent's ability to defend himself adequately.

Issue 4: Denial of financial resources affecting the defense in the inquiry
The Court pointed out that the respondent faced financial hardship during the disciplinary inquiry, as he was not paid his pension or any subsistence allowance. This denial of financial resources hindered the respondent's ability to participate effectively in the inquiry, impacting his access to justice. The judgment emphasized the importance of providing financial support to employees facing disciplinary proceedings to ensure a fair and meaningful defense.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Bank, emphasizing the need for fair treatment and access to justice in departmental inquiries. The Court highlighted the importance of timely actions, fair opportunities for defense, and the provision of financial resources to ensure a just disciplinary process. Additionally, costs were imposed on the Bank for unnecessarily litigating against the respondent, who had superannuated, despite clear legal precedents.