DEBOTOSH PAL CHOUDHARY Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
LAWS(SC)-2002-9-16
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
September 17,2002
DEBOTOSH PAL CHAUDHARY
Appellant
VERSUS
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
UNION OF INDIA VS. MOHAMMAD RAMZAN KHAN [REFERRED]MANAGING DIRECTOR ECIL HYDERABAD VS. B KARUNAKAR [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. TRILOKI NATH PANDEY H C C P 232 [LAWS(ALL)-2004-12-201] [REFERRED TO]RAM KRISHNA DHANDHANIA VS. CIVIL JUDGE SR DIVN [LAWS(ALL)-2005-7-92] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH VS. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2007-9-156] [REFERERD TO]
SWAPAN KUMAR MITRA VS. SOUTH BENGAL STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(CAL)-2003-8-51] [REFERRED TO]
SYNDICATE BANK VS. VENKATARAMA MURLIDHAR SHENOY [LAWS(CAL)-2004-1-61] [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL MANAGER VS. RAM PRASAD MANDAL [LAWS(MPH)-2008-2-118] [REFERRED TO]
UMESH CHANDRA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2005-10-175] [REFERRED TO]
BAKUL CHANDRA DEY VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2006-4-41] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF TURBO ENERGY LTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT [LAWS(MAD)-2009-4-373] [REFERRED TO]
B.D. LUTHRA VS. CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [LAWS(DLH)-2010-3-319] [REFERRED TO]
State of U.P. VS. Prem Shankar Sharma and others [LAWS(ALL)-2006-10-213] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV SAHAY SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2013-8-163] [REFERRED TO]
S.S. TYAGI VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [LAWS(DLH)-2011-1-493] [REFERRED TO]
A P SHARMA VS. INDIAN TELEPHONE INDUSTRIES [LAWS(ALL)-2014-7-463] [REFERRED TO]
SOUTH BENGAL STATE TRANSPORT CORPN VS. SWAPAN KUMAR MITRA [LAWS(SC)-2006-2-67] [REFERRED TO]
MANJIT SINGH VS. PUNJAB & SINDH BANK [LAWS(DLH)-2012-7-11] [REFERRED TO]
CHHATRAPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-9-193] [REFERRED TO]
RAM PAL SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-3-44] [REFERRED TO]
HARIHAR BHOLE NATH MISRA VS. STATE PUBLIC SERVICES [LAWS(ALL)-2011-12-8] [REFERRED TO]
A SADANAND VS. SYNDICATE BANK [LAWS(APH)-2010-12-112] [REFERRED TO]
N RAJENDRAN VS. V C P PERIAKATHAN [LAWS(MAD)-2011-12-22] [REFERRED TO]
AFTAB AHMAD VS. ADMINISTRATOR, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(PAT)-2012-8-95] [REFERRED TO]
K. RAKKIANNA GOUNDER VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2014-1-196] [REFERRED TO]
K K SINGH VS. KING GEORGES MEDICAL UNIVERSITY [LAWS(ALL)-2014-7-19] [REFERRED TO]
TULSIRAM SAHU VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI), REP. THOUGH ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTS AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2009-4-66] [REFERRED TO]
KAMAL KISHOR AND ORS. VS. STATE OF MP [LAWS(MPH)-2015-10-8] [REFERRED TO]
ANUP PATI AND ORS. VS. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(TRIP)-2015-12-18] [REFERRED TO]
PANCHANAN SAHOO VS. HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AND ANR. [LAWS(ORI)-2008-12-118] [REFERRED TO]
G.R. PARMAR VS. GENERAL MANAGER PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2016-3-241] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ORS VS. RADHEY SHYAM MAURYA [LAWS(GAU)-2004-3-112] [REFERRED]
S GANESHRAJA VS. DEPUTY SALT COMMISSIONER; SUPERINTENDENT OF SALT; DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SALT; P S PONRATHINAM [LAWS(MAD)-2016-8-256] [REFERRED]
YOGENDRA KUMAR TIWARI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-143] [REFERRED TO]
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRAN VS. BHUSHAN JAGANNATHRAO BULBULE [LAWS(BOM)-2018-5-75] [REFERRED TO]
BIBHUTI NATH JHA VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(PAT)-2018-2-250] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHA GUPTA VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2020-1-28] [REFERRED TO]
DES RAJ VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2020-1-54] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Rajendra Babu, J. -
(1.)The petitioner before us was employed on the establishment of the first respondent-Bank. He was dismissed from service by an order made on October 8, 1988 on the basis of an enquiry conducted by an Enquiry Officer and the report made on September 26, 1988. In challenging by way of a writ petition the order of dismissal the petitioner contended that the enquiry is vitiated as he did not have any reasonable opportunity to have the copies of the documents or inspection thereof; that he was not afforded an opportunity to adduce oral evidence by examining two witnesses - Shri S.C. Tandon and Shri A.K. Dey; that under Regulation 6(18) of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations') 15 days' time should have been given to him for furnishing a written brief after completion of the production of evidence, but the Enquiry Officer gave him only two days' time; that the copy of the enquiry report was not given to him before imposing the punishment of dismissal.
(2.)The stand of the respondents is that full opportunity was given to the petitioner by either furnishing copies of documents or inspection thereof; that the production of oral evidence through Shri S.C. Tandon and Shri A.K. Dey was denied as such request was made at a belated stage and their evidence would be irrelevant to the enquiry; that the petitioner having been dismissed by an order made on October 8, 1988 before the decision of this Court Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588, non-furnishing of a copy of the enquiry report would not affect the order of dismissal; that the petitioner having made oral submissions pleaded for grant of time to file written brief only in case the Presenting Officer also did so; that when the Presenting Officer did not file any written brief, question of petitioner filing the same would not arise; that even otherwise, the petitioner did not ask for more time than granted and hence, cannot make a grievance of the same.
(3.)The learned single Judge, inter alia, held that the disciplinary authority did not forward to the Inquiring Authority the documents and lists of witnesses before commencing the enquiry against the petitioner and accepted each one of the contentions raised by the petitioner and allowed the writ petition. On appeal, the Division Bench reversed the decision of the learned single Judge and dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
(2.)The stand of the respondents is that full opportunity was given to the petitioner by either furnishing copies of documents or inspection thereof; that the production of oral evidence through Shri S.C. Tandon and Shri A.K. Dey was denied as such request was made at a belated stage and their evidence would be irrelevant to the enquiry; that the petitioner having been dismissed by an order made on October 8, 1988 before the decision of this Court Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588, non-furnishing of a copy of the enquiry report would not affect the order of dismissal; that the petitioner having made oral submissions pleaded for grant of time to file written brief only in case the Presenting Officer also did so; that when the Presenting Officer did not file any written brief, question of petitioner filing the same would not arise; that even otherwise, the petitioner did not ask for more time than granted and hence, cannot make a grievance of the same.
(3.)The learned single Judge, inter alia, held that the disciplinary authority did not forward to the Inquiring Authority the documents and lists of witnesses before commencing the enquiry against the petitioner and accepted each one of the contentions raised by the petitioner and allowed the writ petition. On appeal, the Division Bench reversed the decision of the learned single Judge and dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.