Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

J U D G M E N T B.P JEEVAN REDDY,J Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties. This appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the second appeal filed by the appellant raises certain basic questions concerning natural Justice in the context of disciplinary proceedings.

A disciplinary enquiry was held against the respondent in respect of two charges. They are:

"Charge No.1 'That he did not deposit the sum of Rs.10,000/- handed over to him by Sh. Balwant Singh in December 1985, in the crop loan account of Sh. Jarnail Singh S/o Sh.Lahra Singh. Later on the entire amount of Rs.11,517=50 outstanding in the account was deposited by someone on the 22nd March 1986 under the signature of ah Balwant Singh. He thus utilised the amount of Rs.10,000/- for approximately 3 months for his own advantage.' Charge No.II 'That hes in contravention of Regulation 50(4) of the State Bank of Patiala (Officers') Service Regulations 1979, issued an undated letter in, his own handwriting addressed to the Tehsildars Bhatinda for revocation of Mutation on the land mortgaged to the Bank even when the crop loan account of Shri Jarnail Singh was not adjusted. He thus jeopardized the interests of the Bank'."

At the conclusion of the enquiry, a report was submitted by the enquiry officer holding both the charges established. The competent authority accepted the report and ordered the removal of the respondent from the service. An appeal and a review submitted by the respondent were dismissed. The respondent thereupon instituted a suit in the court of learned Sub-Judge, IInd Class, Bhatinda for a declaration that the order of removal is void and illegal and for a declaration that he continues to be in service with all consequential benefits. The Trial Court rejected all the grounds urged by the respondent in support of his case except one, viz., that "the list of witnesses and list of documents were not supplied along with charge-sheet and then the same were not supplied by the presenting officer during the course of enquiry". On the only ground that "this argument of the learned, counsel for the plaintiff was not meted out by the learned counsel for the defendants in, his written arguments", the Trial Court held the allegation established. It found that the said failure to supply is violative of Regulation 68(X)(b)(iii) of the State Bank of Patiala (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 and on that basis, decreed the suit. On appeal, the judgment and the decree of the Trial Court was affirmed. The Appellate Court found the following facts: during the course of enquiry, the presenting officer filed a provisional list of documents/ witnesses (P-2) on June 2,1987. The list contained nine documents including the statements of Kaur Singh, Patwari, and Balwant Singh, complainant. The said documents were marked as P-3 to P-11. Though a copy of the list of documents/statements was supplied to the respondent- plaintiff, copies of the documents P-3 to P-11 were not supplied to him. He was however, advised , examine and take notes of the said documents/ statements. This opportunity was given only half an hour before the commencement of the enquiry proceedings. The Appellate Court found that in the above circumstances, there was a clear violation of Regulation 68 which has prejudicially affected the respondent's defence. The second appeal filed by the Bank was dismissed by a learned single Judge of the High Court affirming the said finding. The learned Judge in fact assigned one more ground in support of the respondent's case, viz., that inasmuch as Balwant Singh was not examined, it is a case of no evidence'. Before entering upon the discussion of issues arising herein, it is well to reiterate the well-accepted proposition that the scope of judicial review in these matters is the same whether it is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or a suit filed in the civil court.

It is not brought to our notice that the State Bank of Patiala (Officers') Service Regulation contains provision corresponding to Section 99 C.P.C. or Section 465 Cr.P.C. Does it mean that any and every violation of the regulations renders the enquiry and the punishment void or whether the principle underlying Section 99 C.P.C. and Section 465 Cr.P.C. is applicable in the case of disciplinary proceedings as well. In our opinion, the test in such cases should be one of prejudice, as would be later explained in this judgment. But this statement is subject to a rider. The regulations may contain certain substantive provisions, e.g., who is the authority competent to impose a particular punishment on a particular employee/officer. Such provisions must be strictly complied with. But there may be any number of procedural provisions which stand on a different footing. We must hasten to add that even among procedural provisions, there may be some provisions which are of a fundamental nature in the case of which the theory of substantial compliance may not be applicable For examples take a case where a rule expressly provides that the delinquent officer/employee shall be given an opportunity to produce evidence/material in support evidence of the other side. If no such opportunity is given at all inspite of a request therefor, lt will be difficult to say that the enquiry is not vitiated. But in respect of many procedural provisions it would be possible to apply the theory of substantial compliance or the test of prejudices as the case may be. The position can be stated in the following words: Regulations which are of a substantive nature have to be complied with and in case of such provisions, the theory of substantial compliance would not be available. (2) Even among procedural provisions, there may be some provisions of a fundamental nature which have to be complied with and in whose case, the theory of substantial compliance may not be available. (s) In respect of procedural provisions other than of a fundamental nature the theory of substantial compliance would be available. In complain objection on this score have to be judged on the touch-stone of prejudices as explained later in this judgment. In other words the test is: all things taken together whether the delinquent officer/employee had or did not have a fair hearing. We may clarify that which provision falls in which of the aforesaid categories is a matter to he decided in each case having regard to the nature and character of the relevant provision.