Doctrines/Principles: Principle of natural justice – Reasonable opportunity of hearing – On facts, writ petition by employee challenging his removal from service – High Court set aside the order of punishment as well as penalty order, directing employer to serve notice before imposing penalty – Thereafter, employer-bank served repeated notice for personal hearing to employee, however, employee did not appear – In appeal by the employee, the Division Bench however, again directed the employerBank to grant another opportunity of hearing to the employee – On appeal held: Once opportunity has been granted to the employee, he is not entitled to another opportunity on the ground of compassion – Time and again opportunity of hearing cannot be granted on the pretext of justice – Delaying tactics cannot be rewarded in such a manner – Once the employee has failed to avail of opportunity of hearing granted, the Bank cannot be directed to give another opportunity – Thus, the directions issued by the Division Bench to grant another opportunity not sustainable and is set aside – In view of grave and serious allegations of financial irregularities against the employee, the order of removal cannot be said to be unjust. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The respondent avoided availing the opportunity when offered thrice. Once opportunity has been granted to the respondent, he is not entitled to another opportunity on the ground of compassion. The only reasoning given by the Division Bench is ‘justice demands’ that the respondent be given one last opportunity to place his version. The respondent lost his chance to put his version before the Competent Authority when called upon by the Authority to do so. Time and again opportunity of hearing cannot be granted on the pretext of justice. The delaying tactics cannot be rewarded in such a manner. Once the respondent has failed to avail of opportunity of hearing granted, the Bank cannot be directed to give another opportunity for the sake of justice. Therefore, the directions issued by the Division Bench to grant another opportunity are not sustainable and the same are set aside. [Para 10] [774-D-F]
1.2 The allegations of financial irregularities against the respondent run into crores of rupees under multiple heads. The inquiry officer found ten charges proved whereas six charges have not been proved. Because of grave and serious allegations of financial irregularities, the order of removal cannot be said to be unjust. [Para 11] [774-F-G]
1.3 Even though, the judgment of the Single Bench finding fault with the order of removal as affirmed in the appeal, cannot be said to be justified in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of *Mohammad Badruddin but since the Bank has not filed an appeal against such judgment, therefore, the correctness of the said judgment is not being examined in the appeal which is directed against judgment of Division Bench of High Court. [Para 12] [774-G-H; 775-A]
Bank of India v. Apurba Kumar Saha (1994) 2 SCC
615 ; *State Bank of India & Ors. v. Mohammad Badruddin 2019 (7) JT 288 ; State Bank of India & Ors. v. Ranjit Kumar Chakraborty & Anr. (2018) 12 SCC 807 ; State Bank of India & Ors. v. B.R. Saini (2018) 11 SCC 83 - referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.