Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1017 (PAT)

State Bank Of India v. Kapileshwar Sahay

2006-11-07

ABHIJIT SINHA, NARAYAN ROY

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Tarakant Jha, learned Senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, learned senior counsel for the sole respondent. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this court dated 5th May, 2004 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1233 of 2004 whereby and whereunder the order passed by the appellate authority was set aside and the authorities were directed to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. 3. From the facts as gathered from the order passed by learned Single Judge, it appears that the sole respondent was found guilty in a departmental proceeding and certain penalties were imposed upon him as per the rules of the State Bank of India. Order passed by the authorities was challenged in the writ application on the ground that the authorities while differing with the enquiry report, did not afford an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent which must be held to be in violation of the principles of natural justice in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL vs. B. Karunakar reported in 1993(4) S.C.C. 727 . 4. Learned Single Judge of this court on appreciation of facts and arguments of the parties, held that the second show cause notice was never issued to the writ petitioner and on that ground, the order of punishment suffered from many illegalities and was wholly without jurisdiction. The matter, however, was remitted back to the authorities to proceed in accordance with law. 5. Mr. Tarakant Jha, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the delinquent had not shown any prejudice caused to him, there was no requirement of issuance of notice even on the question of difference in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Union Bank of India vs. Vishwa Mohan. reported in 1998(4) S.C.C. 310 . Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the learned Single Judge of this court erred in recording a finding that the second show cause notice was not served on the delinquent. 6. Mr. reported in 1998(4) S.C.C. 310 . Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the learned Single Judge of this court erred in recording a finding that the second show cause notice was not served on the delinquent. 6. Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent, on the contrary, submitted that in view of the ratio laid down in the case of B. Karunakar (supra) the authorities were required to give notice or an opportunity to the delinquent irrespective of the fact as to whether there was prejudice or no prejudice. Learned counsel further submitted that the State Bank of India has already framed rules to govern the cases of its employees i.e. S.B.I. Officers Service Rule (hereinafter referred to as Rules) and Rule 50(3)(ii) of the Rules contemplates that in case the disciplinary authority disagrees with the report of the enquiry authority in regard to certain charges, providing an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent is necessary to satisfy the principles of natural justice and in view of Rule 50(3)(ii) of Rules, no question arises as to the prejudice caused to the delinquent. In support of his contention Mr. Sinha relied upon the case of State Bank of India and Ors. vs. K.P. Narayanan Kutty reported in 2003(1) P.L.J.R. S.C. 257. 7. Mr. Tarakant Jha, now contends that Rule 50(3)(ii) of the Rules does not talk of issuance of a notice or to provide an opportunity to the delinquent and, therefore, the delinquent was to satisfy the Court that his case was prejudiced by not affording him an opportunity of hearing on the question of difference. 8. This question is no more res integra in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India and Ors. (supra). Necessarily, therefore, it follows that the requirements of audi alterem partem were not observed while passing the order of penalty upon the delinquent. 9. The learned Single Judge of this court, in this view of the matter, was perfectly justified in recording the finding and in allowing the writ application of the sole respondent. 10. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.