The State Bank Of India & Ors. vs Pulak Chandra Das

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

This intra court appeal has been filed by the State Bank of India challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.02.2025 in C.W.J.C. No. 11961 of 2010, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein by stating in Paragraphs 13 to 15 as under:-

Some of the facts which are relevant to be noted are that the respondent while working as a Senior Assistant in the appellant Bank was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. The preliminary charges were framed on 13.03.2007, to which the respondent submitted his reply on 17.04.2007. Thereafter, a final charge-sheet was framed on 22.08.2007. The respondent submitted his reply to the same on 05.09.2007. The Disciplinary Authority not being satisfied with the respondent’s explanation, proceeded to appoint an Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 26.12.2008 holding the charges framed against the respondent as proved. Resultantly, a second show-cause notice dated 05.11.2009 was issued by the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to impose punishment of removal of the respondent from service on 14.11.2009. Aggrieved by the order of punishment, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 26.12.2009, which appeal was dismissed. This resulted in the respondent filing the writ petition before the learned Single Judge wherein the impugned order is passed.

The case of the respondent was that the Disciplinary Proceedings were not held in accordance with the principles of natural justice. According to the respondent, the charge-memo was not accompanied with the list of documents and list of witnesses. According to him, even the statement of imputation was not provided. None of the witnesses like author of the documents have been examined for the purpose of proving the charges. The aforesaid submissions were not appreciated by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, resulting in the imposition of penalty of removal of the respondent from service.

Though the appellant Bank has tried to justify the proceedings against the respondent, the stand was not accepted by the learned Single Judge who allowed the writ petition in the manner referred to, by us in the above paragraphs.

The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Bank would make only one submission inasmuch as though the learned Single Judge has set aside the punishment of removal of the respondent from service but he has erred in not remanding the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority for holding the proceedings from the stage of violation of principles of natural justice. According to her, the charges against the respondent are of very serious nature and the said allegations need to be enquired into in accordance with the principles of natural justice. She has relied upon the judgments in the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. A. Masilamani; (2013) 6 SCC 530, Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others Vs. B. Karunakar and others; (1993) 4 SCC 727 and U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S. Pandey and another; (2005) 8 SCC 264 wherein according to her, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if the dismissal/removal is set aside for breach of natural justice, the matter ought to be remanded back to the competent authority.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would justify the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge, inasmuch as when the proceedings have been held in total disregard to the principles of natural justice, the only outcome possible is that the proceedings which have been initiated resulting in the order of removal of the respondent from service, liable to be set aside and the respondent reinstated in service, with 50% back wages, as awarded by the learned Single Judge. He contests the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that the matter be remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority.

Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that when the respondent filed writ petition before the learned Single Judge, his age was 42 years and we have been informed that the respondent would be around 58 years of age as of now and hence, the respondent has still service left before he will attain the age of superannuation. If that be so, we agree with the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that when a Disciplinary Proceedings resulting in the punishment of removal from service is set aside, the charges against the respondent are of serious nature, the learned Single Judge should have remanded the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority to enable the Disciplinary Authority to proceed in the proceedings from the stage when the principles of natural justice have been violated so that the charges which have been framed against the respondent are enquired into.

We accordingly accept the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel by remanding the matter to the Disciplinary Authority by modifying the direction in Paragraph 15 of the impugned order to read as under:-

The impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.02.2025 is modified to the above extent and the Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(Partha Sarthy, J) : I agree.