Civil Appeal No. 5474 of 1998

21st February, 2001

Cases Cited:
Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84 [Para 2]
Union Bank of India v. Vishwa Mohan, (1998) 4 SCC 310 [Para 2]
Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727 [Para 2]

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- State Bank of India is in appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in LPA No. 358/1996. By the said judgment, the Division Bench has affirmed the decision of the learned single Judge and refused to interfere with the same. It is not necessary to narrate the facts in detail. Suffice it to say that an enquiry was conducted against the delinquent, an Officer of the Bank in respect of charges 1 (a), l(b), l(c), 1 (d) and charges 2 and 3. On the basis of the materials produced, the enquiring officer came to the conclusion that charge l(c) is fully proved but so far as other charges are concerned, it came to the conclusion that charges have been partly proved. On receipt of the findings of the enquiring officer, the disciplinary authority re-examined the materials and did not agree with the conclusion of the enquiring officer on charges 1 (a), l(b), 1 (d), 2 and 3. The disciplinary authority, on the other hand, came to the conclusion that the charges I (a), l(b) and 1 (d) must be held to have been fully proved, and taking into account the gravity of the charges, the disciplinary authority recommended the case to the appointing authority for infliction of a major punishment. This it was entitled to under Rule 49(g) of the

2. Mr. Sundravardan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the State Bank of India contended before us that in the case in hand, in fact, there has been no disagreement with the findings of the enquiring officer by the disciplinary authority, and on the other hand, the disciplinary authority on the accepted findings of the enquiring officer has recorded his conclusion differently on the basis of the relevant provisions of the rules, and therefore the question of giving an opportunity to the delinquent at that stage does not arise. To appreciate this contention, we have been taken through the findings of the enquiring officer and charges 1 (a) and l(d) as well as the reasoning and ultimate conclusion of the disciplinary authority on those two charges. On examining the same, we are not persuaded to accept the submission of the learned counsel and in our view, the disciplinary authority has disagreed with the conclusion and findings arrived at by the enquiring officer. The next question therefore is, as has been formulated earlier, whether the disciplinary authority was required to record its tentative reasons for disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it recorded its ultimate findings. This question is concluded by a 3-Judge Bench decision of this Court in the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84. The Bench in the aforesaid case relied upon the earlier decision in the institute of Chartered Accountant case as well as the Ram Kishan case and came to hold that the view expressed in S. S.Koshal and M. C. Saxena cases do not lay down the correct law. Mr. Sundravardan, however, brought to our notice yet another 3-Judge Bench decision in the case of Union Bank of India v. Vishwa Mohan, (1998) 4 SCC 310, and contended that a different view has been taken in the aforesaid cases. But on examining the aforesaid decision in Union Bank of India case, we find that the question which arose for consideration in the Punjab National Bank case was not really there before the Court and the Court was examining the question as to what would be the effect if copy of the enquiry report is not furnished to the delinquent employee. The Court obviously relied upon the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar. (1993)4 SCC 727. In the absence of any contrary decision of a 3-Judge Bench decision on the question in issue, we are bound by the earlier judgment of this Court in Punjab National Bank case, necessarily, therefore we do not find any merit in this appeal, which stands dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.