BILASPUR RAIPUR KSHETRIYAGRAMIN BANKANDANR versus MADANLAL TANDON
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 86, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 86 
A BILASPUR RAIPUR KSHETRIYAGRAMIN BANKANDANR 
B 
v. 
MADANLAL TANDON 
(Civil Appeal No. 4467 of 2015) 
MAY 15, 2015 
[M. Y .. EQBAL AND S. A. BOB DE, JJ.) 
Service Law: Misconduct -
Charge-sheet -
c Punishment - Removal from service - Plea of respondent-
employee in writ petition that along with charge-sheet, neither 
the list of documents nor the documents sought to iJe relied 
upon were supplied - High Court quashed order of removal 
- Held: The records clearly showed that the documents which 
D were the basis of charges leveled against the respondent 
were not supplied to the respondent- High Court was right in 
holding that order of removal was not sustainable. 
E 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Indisputably, no documents were 
supplied to the respondent along with the charge-sheet 
~n the basis of which charges were framed. Some of 
the documents were given during departmental inquiry, 
F but relevant documents on the basis of which findings 
were recorded were not made available to the 
respondent. The list of documents and witnesses were 
also not supplied and some of the documents were 
produced during the course of inquiry. Admittedly, show 
G cause notice was served along with 17 charges, but all 
the documents were not supplied to the respondent. The 
appellant was not able to demonstrate that the above 
documents were supplied to the respondent even during 
the course of inquiry. The High Court rightly came to the 
H conclusion
that the order of punishment cannot be 
86
BILASPUR RAIPUR KSHETRIYA GRAM IN BANK AND 
87 
ANR. v .. MADANLAL TANDON 
sustained in law. However, taking into consideration the A 
fact that the respondent was out of employment since 
1991, a lump sum payment of Rs.5,00,000/- towards the 
salary would meet the ends of justice. [Paras 9, 10) (90-
D-H; 91-A-B] 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
4467of2015. 
B 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.02.2012 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur in Writ. c 
Appeal No. 147of2010. 
Akshat Shrivasatava, Sarbajit Datta (For Manjeet 
Kirpal) for the Appellants. 
T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas (For Nikhil Nayyar) for D 
the Respondent. 
· 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
M. Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Leave granted. 
E 
2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the 
judgment and order dated 17th February, 2012, whereby 
Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in· the writ 
appeal preferred by the appellants upheld the order of the F 
learned Single Judge and directed payment towards 
respondent's claim of salary up to Rs.5,00,000/- with all 
consequential benefits. 
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent 
was working as a Field Supervisor in the appellant Bank since G 
1981. In February, 1984, a charge-sheet was issued to him 
for having committed misconduct and after a departmental 
inquiry, an order dated 5. 7 .1984 was passed by the Disciplinary 
Authority imposing punishment of stoppage of his two annual H
88 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A increments. Thereafter a second charge-sheet was issued to 
the respondent in November, 1987 alleging that the respondent 
had committed several financial irregularities in various loan 
cases.An inquiry was conducted, wherein fourteen charges 
were found proved against the respondent and three charges 
B were not found proved. Consequently, the punishment of 
removal from service was inflicted against the respondent on 
1.10.1991. Respondent preferred an appeal before the Board 
of Directors of the appellant Bank, but the same was 
dismissed. 
c 
4. The respondent, therefore, moved the High Court by 
way of writ petition, inter alia contending that both the charge-
sheets being identical, the second inquiry was not competent. 
It was also contended that along with the second charge-sheet, 
D neither the list of documents nor the documents sought to be 
relied upon were supplied. It was also contended by the 
respondent-writ petitioner that appropriate opportunity was not 
afforded to him to have inspection of the relevant documents 
and as such the respondent was not in a position to reply the 
E said show cause notice effectively and to defend him in the 
inquiry. Learned Single Judge of the High Court rejected his 
first contention and held that the charges were not identical 
and, therefore, the second inquiry was competent. However, 
F it was held that along with the charge-sheet and imputation of 
charges, there was no list
of documents and list of witne~ .es 
were also not supplied as such the respondent was not afforded 
an opportunity to put forward his case in response to show 
cause notice along with the charge-sheet. Observing that the 
G object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government 
servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in 
imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from 
service, learned Single Judge of the High Court quashed the 
orders of removal passed by the appellant and allowed the 
H writ petition of the respondent with all consequential benefits.
. BILASPUR RAIPUR KSHETRIYAGRAMIN BANK AND 
89 
ANR. v. MADANLAL TANDON [M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
5. Aggrieved by aforesaid decision, the appellants A 
preferred writ appeal, wherein Division Bench of the High 
Court, after perusing the record, found that although the show 
cause notice was served along with 17 charges, but no 
documents were supplied along with the show cause to the 
respondent. Even the list of documents sought to be relied B 
during the inquiry was not supplied along with the show cause. 
The Division Bench opined that it is trite law that when a 
delinquent employee is facing disciplinary proceeding, he is 
entitled to be afforded with a reasonable opportunity to meet 
the charges against him in an effective manner. If the copies C 
of the documents are not supplied to the concerned employee, 
it would be difficult for him to prepare his defence and to cross-
examine the witnesses and point out the inconsistencies with 
a view to show that the allegations are false or baseless. 
6. The Division Bench of the High Court further observed 
that in the instant case neither the list of witnesses nor the list 
D 
of documents was supplied to the respondent along with the 
charge-sheet. Though during the course of inquiry some 
documents were supplied to him but those documents, on E 
which the reliance was placed by the Inquiry Officer for holding 
various charges proved, were not supplied to the respondent. 
The High Court further observed that the respondent is out
of 
employment since 01.10.1991 and his claim for arrears of F 
salary, as stated by counsel for both the parties, would be more 
than45-50 lakhs. The Bank's money is public money and a 
huge amount cannot be paid to anyone for doing no work. The 
principle of "no work no pay" has been evolved in view of the 
public interest that an employee who does not discharge his G 
duty is not entitled to arrears of salary at the cost of public 
exchequer. By way of impugned judgment, the High Court, 
therefore, concluded that in the facts and circumstances of the 
case a lump-sum payment of Rs. 5,00,000/-towards the claim 
of salary, would be just and proper in this matter. The H
90 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A respondent was also held to be entitled to all other 
consequential benefits. 
7. Hence, the present appeal by special leave by the 
appellant Bank and its Board of Directors. It is worth to mention 
B here that the respondent has not come to this Court against 
the impugned judgment passed by the High Court. 
8. We have heard Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, learned 
counsel forthe appellants and Mr. T.V.S. Raghavendra Sreyas, 
c learned counsel for the respondent. We have also perused 
the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High 
Court. The only controversy that falls for our consideration is 
as to whether the documents, which were the basis of the 
charges leveled against the respondent, were supplied to the 
D respondent or not? 
9. Indisputably, no documents were supplied to the 
respondent along with the charge-sheet on the basis of which 
charges were framed. Some of the documents were given 
E during departmental inquiry, but relevant documents on the 
basis of which findings were recorded were not made available 
to the respondent. It further appears that the list of documents 
and witnesses were also not supplied and some of the 
documents were produced during the course of inquiry. 
F 
10. Admittedly, show cause notice was served along 
with 17 charges, but all the documents were not supplied to 
the respondent. A perusal of the impugned order will show 
that when the Division Bench, during the course of
arguments, 
G asked the learned counsel appearing for the appellants 
whetherdocumentsviz. P-21, P-25, P-23, P-19, P-30, P-31 & 
P-32 were supplied to the respondent, on the basis of which 
various charges have been held to be proved, learned counsel 
was not able to demonstrate that the above documents were 
H supplied to the respondent even during the course of inquiry.

BILASPUR RAIPUR KSHETRIYAGRAMIN BANKAND 
91 
ANR. v. MADANLAL TANDON [M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
The Division Bench then following a catena of decisions of A 
this Court came to the conclusion that the order of punishment 
cannot be sustained in law. However, taking into consideration 
the fact that the respondent was out of employment since 1991, 
a lump sum payment of Rs.5,00,000/- towards the salary would 
meet the ends of justice. 
B 
11. After giving our anxious consideration, we do not 
find any reason to differ with the finding recorded by the learned 
Single Judge and also the Division Bench of the High Court in 
writ appeal. Therefore, this civil appeal is dismissed. 
C 
Devika Gujral 
Appeal dismissed.