Case: P.D. Agrawal Vs. State Bank Of India

are almost identical. Primarily, charges of similar nature in respect of commission of misconduct on nine different occasions were the subject matter of the disciplinary proceeding. The charge No.2 constituted an independent charge, as commission of one misconduct had nothing to do with the commission of similar nature of misconduct on all other occasions. The said charge was, therefore, severable. 48. A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Orissa & Ors. vs. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra [(1963) Supp.1 SCR 648 : AIR 1963 SC 779 ] opined: "The High Court has held that there was evidence to support the findings on heads (c) & (d) of Charge (1) and on Charge (2). In respect of charge 1(b) the respondent was acquitted by the Tribunal and it did not fall to be considered by the Governor. In respect of charges 1(a) and 1(e) in the view of the High Court "the rules of natural justice had not been observed". It is not necessary for us to consider whether the High Court was right in holding that the findings of the Tribunal on charges 1(a) and 1(e) were vitiated for reasons set out by it, because in our judgment the order of the High Court directing the Government to reconsider the question of punishment cannot, for reasons we will presently set out, be sustained. If the order of dismissal was based on the findings on charges 1(a) and 1(e) alone the Court would have jurisdiction to declare the order of dismissal illegal but when the findings of the Tribunal relating to the two out of five heads of the first charge and the second charge was found not liable to be interfered with by the High Court and those findings established that the respondent was prima facie guilty of grave delinquency, in our view the High Court had no power to direct the Governor of Orissa to reconsider the order of dismissal." 49. The Constitution Bench therein has clearly laid down that even if the charges which have been proved, justify imposition of punishment of dismissal from service, this Court may not exercise its power of judicial review. 50. The said decision was noticed by this Court in Binny Ltd. Vs. Workmen [AIR 1972 SC 1975 : (1972) 3 SCC 806 ], in the following terms: ".It was urged that the Court should not have assumed that the General Manager would have inflicted the punishment of dismissal solely on the basis of the second charge and consequently the punishment should not be sustained if it was held that one of the two charges on the basis of which it was imposed was unsustainable. This was rejected following the decision in State of Orissa v. Bidyabhan Mohapatra, where it was said that if an order in an enquiry under Article 311 can be supported on any finding as substantial misdemeanour for which punishment imposed can lawfully be given, it is not for the Court to consider whether that ground alone would have weighed with the authority in imposing the punishment in question. In our view that principle can have no application to the facts of this case. Although the enquiry officer found in fact that the respondent had behaved insolently towards the Warehouse Master, he did not come to the conclusion that this act of indiscipline on a solitary occasion was sufficient to warrant an order of dismissal." 51. Yet again, in Sawarn Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [(1976) 2 SCC 868] , this Court held: "19. In view of this, the deficiency or reference to some irrelevant matters in the order of the Commissioner, had not prejudiced the decision of the case on merits either at the appellate or revisional stage. There is authority for the proposition that where the order of a domestic tribunal makes reference to several grounds, some relevant and existent, and others irrelevant and non- existent, the order will be sustained if the Court is satisfied that the authority would have passed the order on the basis of the relevant and existing grounds, and the exclusion of irrelevant or non-existing grounds could not have affected the ultimate decision." 52. We are, therefore, of the opinion that charge No.2 being severable, this Court can proceed on the basis that the charges against the Appellant in respect of charge No.2 was not proved.53. In Orissa Cement Limited vs. Adikanda Sahu reported 1960 (1) LLJ SC 518 that a verbal abuse may entail imposition of punishment of dismissal from service. 54. The said decision has been followed in Mahindra and Mahendra Ltd. vs. N.N. Narawade etc. reported in JT 2005 (2) SC 583 . 55. The question as regard the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment, it is well known, is limited. While exercising the said jurisdiction, the Court, only in very exceptional case, interferes therewith. 56. In Chairman & M.D., Bharat Pet. Corpn. Ltd. & Ors. vs. T.K. Raju JT 2006 (2) SC 624 , this Court opined: "15. We also do not agree with the submission of Mr. Krishnamani that two of the eight charges have not been found to be proved. The charges levelled against the respondent must be considered on a holistic basis. By reason of such an action, the respondent had put the company in embarrassment. It might have lost its image. It received complaints from the Federation. There was reason for the appellant to believe that by such an action on the part of the respondent the appellants image has been tarnished. In any event, neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench came to any finding that none of the charges had been proved.16. The power of judicial review in such mattes is limited. This Court times without number had laid down that interference with the quantum of punishment should not be one in a routine manner." [See also A. Sudhakar vs. Post Master General, Hyderabad & Anr. (JT 2006 (4) SC 68 )]

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]15.The pattern of charges against the Appellant, categorically point out to the fact that the Appellant had been misbehaving with the Regional Managers and other officers, as well as the customers not only while he was posted in different branches.Charge No.2 refers to an incident, which took place on 26.9.1986. The said charge, admittedly, was not proved. However, it is not disputed that in respect of charge No.1 witnesses were examined on behalf of the 1st Respondent. They were thoroughly cross-examined by the Appellant. Documentary evidences were also adduced by the parties. So far charge No.3 is concerned, only one witness was examined on behalf of the 1st Respondent. The Appellant therein exhibited four documents in support of his case. The 1st Respondent also exhibited some documents. Similarly, in relation to each other charge witnesses were examined on behalf of the 1st Respondent; they were cross-examined and documents were exhibited.17. The validity of the disciplinary proceeding and/or justifiability thereof on the ground of delay or otherwise had never been raised by the Appellant before any forum. It was not his case either before the Appellate Authority or before the High Court that by reason of any delay in initiating the disciplinary proceeding he had been prejudiced in any manner whatsoever. It may be true that delay itself may be a ground for arriving at a finding that enquiry proceeding was vitiated in the event it is shown that by reason thereof the delinquent officer has been prejudiced, but no such case was made out.The terms and conditions of the employees of the Respondent-Bank are governed by a statute. The Disciplinary Authority, by reason of the Rules framed, was delegated with the power of the Bank to initiate departmental proceeding against the delinquent officer and impose suitable punishment upon him, if the misconduct is proved. In this case concept of contract of personal service as is understood in common parlance is not applicable. The doctrine of condonation of misconduct so evolved by ordinary law of `master and servant is thus, not attracted in this case. Under the common law, as also the provisions contained in Section 14(1)(b) of the Specific Relief Act, a master was entitled to terminate the services of an erring employee at his sweet will. The dismissed employee could have sued his master only for damages and not for his reinstatement in service. It is only for the purpose of grant of damages, a declaration was required to be made that the termination of the service was illegal. Having regard to the said legal position, the doctrine of condonation of misconduct evolved, in terms whereof, it was impermissible for the master to allow an employee to continue in service for a long time despite his knowledge that he had committed a misconduct and then to turn round and contend that his services should have been terminated on the ground that he was guilty ofIn this case, as noticed hereinbefore, the Appellant did not raise the question of delay before any forum whatsoever. He did not raise such a question even before the Disciplinary Authority. He not only took part therein without any demur whatsoever, but, as noticed hereinbefore, crossexamined the witnesses and entered into the defence. The Principles of natural justice cannot be put in a straight jacket formula. It must be seen in circumstantial flexibility. It has separate facets. It has in recent time also undergone a sea change.Contention of Mr. Bobde in this behalf that he was not prejudiced thereby cannot be accepted. There has been a flagrant violation of principles of natural justice in so far as no show cause notice was issued to the Appellant by the Disciplinary Authority while differing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer as regard charge No.2. We would deal with this aspect of the matter a little later.36. However, the contention of Mr. Rao that only because a copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the Appellant by the Disciplinary Authority, there has been a violation of the mandatory provisions of the regulations, cannot also be accepted for the reasons stated hereinafter.37. The order of punishment of removal against the Appellant was passed against the Appellant on 22nd July, 1990. The decision of this Court in Mohd. Ramzan Khan (supra), as noticed hereinbefore, was decided on 20th November, 1990 wherein the law laid down by this Court, while holding that a delinquent officer cannot be called upon to make a representation on the quantum of punishment without furnishing a copy of the enquiry report, was expressly given a prospective effect. It was, therefore, not at all necessary for the Disciplinary Authority, keeping in view the law as it then stood, to furnish a copy of the enquiry report to the Appellant.38. Decision of this Court in S.L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan & Ors. [(1980) 4 SCC 379] , whereupon Mr. Rao placed strong reliance to contend that nonobservance of principle of natural justice itself causes prejudice or the same should not be read "as it causes difficulty of prejudice", cannot be said to be applicable in the instant case. The principles of natural justice, as noticed hereinbefore, has undergone a sea change. In view of the decision of this Court in State Bank of Patiala & Ors. vs. S.K. Sharma [(1996) 3 SCC 364] and Rajendra Singh vs. State of M.P. [(1996) 5 SCC 460] , the principle of law is that some real prejudice must have been caused to the complainant. The Court has shifted from its earlier concept that even a small violation shall result in the order being rendered a nullity. To the principal doctrine of audi alterem partem, a clear distinction has been laid down between the cases where there was no hearing at all and the cases where there was mere technical infringement of the principal. The Court applies the principles of natural justice having regard to the fact situation obtaining in each case. It is not applied in a vacuum without reference to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. It is no unruly horse. It cannot be put in a straightjacket formula. [See Viveka Nand Sethi vs. Chairman, J. & K. Bank Ltd. & Ots. (2005) 5 SCC 337  and State of U.P. vs. Neeraj Awasthi & Ors. JT 2006 (1) SC 19 . See also Mohd. Sartaj vs. State of U.P. (2006) 1 SCALE 265.] 39. In Union of India & Anr. vs. Tulsi Ram Patel [(1985) Supp.2 SCR 131 : (1985) 3 SCC 398 ], whereupon again Mr. Rao placed strong reliance, this Court did not lay down a law in absolute terms that violation of principle of natural justice would be read into the equality clause contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The said decision was rendered having regard to the fact that by taking recourse to the second proviso appended to Article 311 of Constitution of India, no disciplinary proceeding was to be initiated at all and an order of dismissal could be passed only on the basis of subjective satisfaction of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank wherefor reason was to be recorded by it in writing that it was not reasonably practicable to hold a disciplinary proceeding.Yet again, in Sawarn Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [(1976) 2 SCC 868] , this CourtIn view of this, the deficiency or reference to some irrelevant matters in the order of the Commissioner, had not prejudiced the decision of the case on merits either at the appellate or revisional stage. There is authority for the proposition that where the order of a domestic tribunal makes reference to several grounds, some relevant and existent, and others irrelevant and non- existent, the order will be sustained if the Court is satisfied that the authority would have passed the order on the basis of the relevant and existing grounds, and the exclusion of irrelevant or non-existing grounds could not have affected the ultimate decision.We are, therefore, of the opinion that charge No.2 being severable, this Court can proceed on the basis that the charges against the Appellant in respect of charge No.2 was not proved.