Supreme Court of India

STATE BANK OF INDIAversusK.C. THARAKAN AND ORS.

Citation: 2005 INSC 472
Decided: 4 October 2005
Disposal: Disposed off
Bench: S N VARIAVA

Holding

The discharge of the employee was justified and the High Court's order of reinstatement with back wages was erroneous; the Industrial Tribunal's award is restored.

Summary

The respondent, a clerk‑cum‑typist of State Bank of India, was caught copying in a bank‑conducted examination and subsequently lodged complaints against the senior officer who acted as invigilator. The bank discharged him on grounds of misconduct and prejudice to the bank's interests, a decision upheld by an Industrial Tribunal that proceeded ex‑parte after the respondent repeatedly failed to appear. The respondent later filed a writ petition seeking reinstatement and back wages, alleging that the charge of misconduct was unfounded and that the bank’s action violated natural justice. The High Court ordered reinstatement, but the Supreme Court held that allegations of corruption against a senior officer, even if made outside official duties, affect the bank’s reputation and justify disciplinary action. It further found that the High Court erred in granting reinstatement and back wages, noting the respondent’s own delays, laches, and lack of any violation of natural justice. Consequently, the Court restored the Tribunal’s award and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether an allegation of corruption against a senior bank officer, made outside the officer's official duties, constitutes misconduct justifying discharge of an employee.
Whether the High Court was justified in ordering reinstatement and payment of full back wages to the discharged employee.
Whether the Industrial Tribunal was properly constituted and had jurisdiction to adjudicate the discharge.
Whether the delay of 29 years in challenging the Indian Institute of Bankers' order barred the writ petition.
Whether principles of natural justice were violated in the disciplinary proceedings.
Whether back wages could be awarded despite the respondent's laches and prolonged absence.

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Acts. Rule 5, s. Section 7

Subjects

service lawdisciplinary dischargemisconductallegation of corruptionnatural justiceindustrial tribunalreinstatementback wageslachesdelaywrit petitionjurisdictionprivate bodyIndian Institute of Bankersstanding orders

Judgment

A ST ATE BANK OF INDIA
v.
K.C. THARAKAN AND ORS.

OCTOBER 4, 2005

B [S.N. VARIAVA AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.]

Service Law:

Discharge-Misconduct-Bank employee found copying in departmental
C examination-Employee made a/legations against the invigilator who was a
senior officer of the Bank-Bank issued a charge sheet charging the employee
on the ground that he had misconducted himself by making serious a/legation
against a senior officer-Bank also charged the employee for indulging in a
conduct which was prejudicial to the interests of the Bank-Employee refused
D to participate in the disciplinary inquiry-Bank discharged the employee-
However, High court directed reinstatement of the employee with back wages-
Correctness of-Held: Allegations of corruption against a senior officer would
affect the interests of the Bank-It makes no difference whether the a/legation
of corruption is in respect of the work of the Bank or in respect of the conduct/
work of the Officer outside the Bank-771e reputation of the Bank gets affected
E if an allegation is made that its Officers are corrupt-Employee himself was
responsible for the gross /aches and delay-Hence, High Court not justified
in directing reinstatement of the employee with back wages.

The respondent joined the appellant-Bank as a Clerk-cum-Typist.
The respondent appeared in the CAllB examination conducted by the
F Indian Institute of Bankers (llB). One of the senior officers of the
appellant-Bank was the Invigilator during the examination. The said
Invigilator found that the respondent was copying from bo.oks and sent a
report to 118. The result of the examination of the respondent was
cancelled. The respondent made certain allegation against the said
G Invigilator.

The appellant-Bank, on 8.4.1969, issued a charge sheet against the
respondent on the ground that he had misconducted himself by making
serious allegations against a senior officer. The appellants charged the

H 1012
STATE BANK OF INDIA v. K.C. THARAKAN 1013
respondent with indulging in a conduct which was prejudicial to the A
interests of the Bank. The respondent refused to participate in the inquiry.
The appellant-Bank discharged the respondent on 6.12.1969. The Central
Government referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. However, the
respondent did not appear before the Tribunal. The Tribunal proceeded
ex-parte, considered all the materials before it, and held that the discharge B
of the respondent was justified. The review petition filed by the respondent
after more than four years was dismissed.

In 1998, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court
which directed reinstatement of the respondent with full back wages. The
appellant-Bank filed a writ appeal and the High Court stayed payment of C
back wages but the order of reinstatement was not stayed. Ultimately, the
High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-Bank. Hence the
appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court
D
HELD: 1.1. The first aspect which must be dealt with is that the
respondent has challenged the order dated 5.3.1969 of the Indian Institute
of Bankers (IIB) for the first time in this writ petition. Thus, this challenge
was after a period of 29 years. IIB had been made a party. llB objected
to the order being passed against it. 11021-A-BJ
E
1.2. The respondent has not been able to give any special reason for
filing a writ petition against the Indian Institute of Bankers (llB) after
such a long delay. The oral explanation that the order passed by the llB
and by the appellant-Bank is arising out of the same incident emanating
from a common enquiry is one which was merely required to be stated to F
be rejected. It is beyond comprehension how the Single Judge could have
accepted such an explanation. The respondent had raised a dispute which
had been referred to the Industrial Tribunal. The only question which had
been referred to was whether the action of the Management in discharging
the respondent was justified. In such proceedings IIB's order would neither G
be considered nor dealt with. Even if the respondent had succeeded before
the Tribunal, the order of the IIB would have still stood. The respondent
could have challenged that order in a Court of competent jurisdiction if
he had so desired. Such a challenge had nothing to do with the action taken
by the appellant-Bank. The enquiry was also not the same. IIB passed its
order on the basis of some inquiry conducted by it. The appellant-Bank H
1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A did not act on that inquiry or the report. From the inquiry report, it can
be seen that the respondent had asked for a copy of the report of IIB. It
had been held that the inquiry report was entirely irrelevant for the
purposes of the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the appellant-Bank.
Further, the action of the appellant- Bank was not arising out of the same
B incident. IIB took action on the ground that the respondent had cheated
during the course of the examination. The appellant- Bank took action
on the ground that serious allegations were made against a senior officer
which affected the interests of the Bank. The two causes of action were
separate and distinct. It is surprising that the Single Judge could not
understand such a basic thing and has chosen to pass an order against
C IIB after a period of 29 years. The Single Judge has also overlooked the
fact that IIB is a private body against whom a writ could not lie. What
was also ignored was that in the earlier writ Petition the respondent had
made IIB a party but had chosen not to ask for any reliefs against them.
Having chosen not to ask for any reliefs in the earlier writ Petition, it was
not open to the respondent to claim reliefs in another writ Petition filed
D subsequently. The order passed against llB is entirely unsustainable and
unjustified. (1021-H; 1022-A-F]

2. An allegation of corruption against a senior Officer would affect
the interests of the Bank. It makes no difference whether the allegation
E of corruption is in respect of the work of the Bank or in respect of the
conduct/work of the Officer outside the Bank. The reputation of the Bank
gets affected if an allegation is made that its Officers are corrupt. Thus,
an allegation of corruption against a senior Officer is one which would
affect the interests of the Bank. The Single Judge was thus absolutely
wrong in holding that no charge had been made out. (1023-E-F]
F
S. Govinda Memon v. Union of India AIR 1967 SC 1274, relied on.

3. In this case, there was no question of violation of principles of
natural justice. The respondent had been given the charge-sheet. He had
G been given an opportunity to appear before the Inquiry Committee. He
chose to stay away from the inquiry proceedings. He was thereafter given
a show-cause notice. He replied to that show-cause notice. His reply was
considered and he was thereafter discharged. He has then filed an appeal.
The Appeal filed by the respondent was also dismissed. Even before the
Industrial Tribunal he remains absent without any just cause. Thus there
·H was no violation of the principles of natural justice. In the inquiry
STATE BANK OF INDIA v. K.C. THARAKAN [VARIAVA, J.] 1015

proceedings evidence had been led to show that the respondent had mis- A
conducted himself. It is on the basis of the material available that the
Inquiry Officer had submitted his report. It is on the basis of material
available that the Industrial Tribunal passed its Award. Thus, the
interference by the High Court was uncalled for. [1024-8-D)

4. For what is stated above, it is clear that the High Court erred in B
directing reinstatement. On facts of. this case, discharge was justified.
However, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that an order of
reinstatement was required to be passed, this was a fit case where there
should have been no order directing payment of full back wages. The
respondent himself had got the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal, C
stalled from 1974 to 1988 by raising a frivolous objection. Thereafter it
was the respondent who kept on asking for adjournments and finally did
not appear before the Industrial Tribunal. Even though the Award was
passed on 23.1.1990 the Review Petition was filed only on 23.9.94 i.e., after
four years. Thus, it is the respondent who is to blame for the gross laches
and deiay. In such circumstances back wages could never have been D
granted. (1024-E-G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 665 of2002.

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.200 I of the Gauhati High
Court at Assam in W.A. No. I 02/2000 (PS), which was renumbered as W.A. E
No. 55(SH)/2000.

Sanjay Kapur for the Appellant.

K. Radhakrishnan, Ms. Nitika, S. Wasim A. Qadri, B.K. Prasad, B.V.
Balaram Das and Ajit Kumar Pande for the Respondents. F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S. N. VARIAVA, J. This Appeal is against the Judgment of the Gauhati
High Court (Shilong Bench)'dated 22nd November, 2001.
G
Briefly stated the facts are as follows:

The Respondent joined the Appellant-Bank as a Clerk-cum-Typist
sometime in 1963. In 1968 the Respondent appeared in the CAIIB Examination
.> conducted by the Indian Institute of Bankers (for short JIB). The examination
H
1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. ,.
A was being held in the premises of the Shilong Branch of the Appellant-Bank.
One of the senior Officers of the Appellant-Bank, by name Shri T. P. Barua,
was the Invigilator during the examination.

According to the Appellant-Bank, the said Shri T. P. Barua found that
the Respondent was copying from books. This is denied by the Respondent
B who claims that he had noticed that the said Shri T. P. Barua was favouring
other candidates and helping them cheat. We are not concerned with this
dispute except to note that the Respondent wrote three letters dated 1st
November, 1968, 2nd November, 1968 and 7th November, 1968 to the IIB
making allegations against the said Shri T. P. Barua. The said Shri T. P.
c Barua also made a report to IIB.

IIB acted on the report by Shri T. P. Barua and cancelled the result of
the examination of the Respondent. IIB also debarred the Respondent from
appearing in the examination for three years. This action of the IIB was taken
on 5th March, 1969.
D
The Appellant-Bank on 8th April, 1969 issued a charge-sheet against
the Respondent on the ground that he had mis-conducted himself by making
serious allegations against a senior officer. The Appellants charged the
Respondent with indulging in a conduct which was prejudicial to the interest
of the Bank. The Respondent was called upon to appear in the disciplinary
E inquiry which was initiated against him. The Respondent, however, claimed
that no such inquiry could be conducted as no charge of mis-conduct had
been made out. The Respondent refused to participate in the inquiry. The
Inquiry Officer collected evidence and submitted his report on 24th May,
1969. The Inquiry Officer held the Respondent guilty of the conduct alleged.
A show-cause-notice was issued to the Respondent as to why the punishment
F
of discharge should not be imposed on him. The Respondent sent his written
explanation to the Appellant-Bank on 3rd December, 1969. The Appellant-
Bank did not accept his explanation and discharged the Respondent by an
Order dated 6th December, 1969. The Respondent filed an Appeal before the
Appellate Authority. This Appeal was rejected on 30th January, 1970.
G
By a Notification dated 8th January, 1971 the Government of India
referred the following dispute to the Industrial Tribunal at Dibrugarh:

"Whether the action of the Management of the State Bank of India
Shillong in discharging Shri K.C. Tharakan from the Bank service
"-.
H w.e.f. 6.12.79 was justified? If not to what relief he entitled."
STATE BANK OF INDIA v. K.C. THARAKAN [VARIAVA, J.] 1017

The Notification had been issued under Section 7 read with Rule 5 of the A
Industrial Disputes Act. By the said Notification, one Shri G. N. Dorah was
appointed as the Presiding Officer of this Tribunal.

On 27th December, 1974 the Respondent raised a preliminary objection
and insisted that the same be adjudicated first. His preliminary objection was
that charge framed did not constitute mis-conduct and, therefore, he could B
not have been discharged. The Tribunal, by its Order dated 27th December,
1974, held that at this stage it could not be said that no offence has been
made out. The Tribunal directed the trial to proceed. The Respondent
challenged this Order by filing a Writ Petition No. 615 of 1975. In the Writ
Petition he obtained stay of the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal. C
The Writ Petition was ultimately dismissed by the High Court on 10th March,
1988. In its Order, the High Court inter a/ia held as follows:

"Curiously enough after having obtained a favourable order for making
a reference when the reference came to be considered, he took a plea
that the reference itself is not proper. According to the impugned. D
order the petitioner made an objection to the maintainability of the
reference on the ground that the omission or commission imputed to
him even if proved do not amount to offence under the standing order
of the Bank and as such the Industrial Disputes Act is not attracted
in this case. It is very difficult to understand and appreciate this
objection, because if the reference is not maintainable at all then the E
fate of the employee would be that having been discharged, he would
remain out of employment. We have not been able to understand why
such a objection was made by the workman to his own detriment and
peril from 1971"

The High Court also held that it was for the Industrial Tribunal to F
consider whether there was any misconduct and remitted the matter back to
the Tribunal.

During the pendency of the Writ Petition the said Shri G. N. Dorah had
retired. The Government of Assam by a Notification dated 30th August, 1988 G
appointed one Shri I. P. Brahma as the Presiding Officer. The Respondent
appeared before the Tribunal on 19th April, 1989, 17th August, 1989 and
20th November, 1989, on which date he did not raise any objections regarding
jurisdiction of the Tribunal. As the matter was being adjourned on a number
of occasions, the Tribunal gave a final date of hearing on 27th December,
1989. The Tribunal made it clear that if the parties did not appear on the next H
1018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A occasion it would proceed ex-parte. On 27th December, 1989 also the
Respondent remained absent. The case was then posted to 23rd January,
1990.

On 23rd January, 1990 the Respondent still remained absent. Therefore,·
the Tribunal proceeded ex-parte, considered all the material before it and
B held that the discharge of the Respondent was justified. In its Judgment, the
Tribunal noted that the award had been delayed for a period of 20 years
because (a) the Respondent had stalled the proceedings by getting a stay
from the High Court in Writ Petition No. 615 of 1975 and (b) that the
Respondent had sought adjournments on various occasions and had then not
c appeared. '

After the award is passed, the Respondent does nothing till 26th
September, 1994. After more than 4 years, he files a Review Petition for
setting aside the ex-parte award. Even in this Review Application he does not
urge that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction inasmuch as there was no properly
D .appointed officer. At this stage, it must be mentioned that the Respondent
seeks to justify this delay on the ground that his father had fallen ill and
ultimately died. It was submitted that the Respondent was required to look
after his father in Kerala. The Respondent's father died on 29th December,
1989. There is no reason why the Respondent could not have filed the Review
Petition earlier. The Review Petition was ultimately dismissed on 22nd
E September, 1997.

On 24th February, 1998 the Respondent filed Writ Petition No. 16(SH)
of 1998. In this Writ Petition he also makes IIB a Respondent party. He, inter
alia, prays that (i) the award dated 22.9.97 and 23.1.90 passed by the learned
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal; (ii) the charge sheet dated 8.4.69 and
F
the dismissal order dated 6J2.69; and (iii) the order dated 5.3.69 of the
Indian Institute of Bankers canceling the result of the examination be all •
quashed and set aside.

To be noted that the Order of IIB was passed as far back as 5th March,
G 1989. It was being challenged,by him for the first time after 29 years. The
High Court by its Judgment dated 8th February, 2000 allows the Writ Petition
and quashes the Award dated 23rd January, 1990. The High Court also quashes
the Order of IIB dated 5th March, 1969 and the Order of discharge. The High
Court directs reinstatement with full back wages.
....
H The Appellant-Bank filed a Writ Appeal. Pending this Writ Appeal
STATE BANK OF INDIA"· K.C. THARAKAN [VARIAVA, J.) 1019

payment of back wages was stayed but the Order of reinstatement was not A
stayed. The Appellant-Bank, thus, reinstated the Respondent on payment of
current salary. The Respondent reported for duty on 18th July, 2000, worked
for a few days and then till January, 2001 he remained absent for a period
of 113 days.

On 8th August, 2000 the Respondent moved an Application before the B
High Court complaining of non-compliance of the interim Order dated 24th
April, 2000. The High Court by its Order dated 18th August, 2000 directed
the Appellant-Bank to consider the grievance of the Respondent within two
months. Pursuant to the directions, the Appellant-Bank considered the claim
of the Respondent to be paid at the maximum of the revised clerical scale and C
gave him that pay. The Respondents' other claim to be promoted was not
acceded to.

The Respondent thus filed another complaint against the Appellant-
Bank for non-compliance of the Order dated 18th August, 2000. This
Application was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 4th D
November, 2000. The High Court held that it could not be said that there was
no compliance.

The Respondent again remained absent from work for the period 9th
February, 2001 to 17th February, 2001 and then from 19th February, 2001
to 29th December, 2001. It appears that he regularly send sick notes. It E
appears that when he was directed to appear before the Medical Board he did
not comply.

On 22nd November, 2001 the Division Bench dismissed the Appeal
filed by the Appellant-Bank. It is this Order which is impugned before us.
F
The Respondent filed a Contempt Petition alleging non-compliance of
the Orders dated 24th April, 2000 and 18th August, 2000. Notice was issued
in that said Contempt Petition. Being aggrieved by the issuance of notice, the
Appellants filed an Appeal. The Appellate Court has kept the Appeal pending
till the disposal of this Appeal. G
To complete narration of facts it must be mentioned that the Respondent
has, on 8th November, 2002, lodged a complaint in this Court alleging fraud
in producing the copy of the Government Notification dated 8th January,
1971. According to the Respondent the fraud is that the document filed in
this Court does not contain the title of the Gauhati High Court. It is also H
1020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
..
.
A claimed that a copy of the original Notification had been sent to a number
of parties whose names were shown in the original Notification but are missing
from the copy produced in this Court. In our view, this is an absolutely
frivolous complaint. It must be mentioned that on these grounds the Respondent
had sought to file a contempt petition. The learned Attorney General correctly
B refused to grant sanction. Therefore, an allegation is made that the permission
is being refused malafide as at the SLP stage, the Solicitor General had
appeared for the Appellant-Bank. It is suggested that permission is being
refused as the Offices of the Attorney General' and Solicitor General are the
same.In our view, all these allegations are absolutely frivolous. There is no
contempt as alleged. There is no fraud. When a copy of a Notification is
C being produced before a Court it Is the body of the Notification which is
required to be produced. The' original Notification would not contain the
name of the High Court. It is only the exhibit in that Court which contains
the name of that High Court. The name of the High Court is not required to
be reproduced in this Court when relying on the Notification. Similarly, it is
not at all necessary that the names of the parties to whom copies had been
D sent must be reproduced. We therefore hold that the Attorney General had
correctly refused permission and the Contempt Petition cannot be registered
and will stand dismissed. The complaint made by the Respondent deserves
to be and is dismissed.

E The Respondent has also filed I.A. No. 3 of 2003 for direction to the
Appellant-Bank to comply with the Order of the High Court. This Application
has been kept with the hearing of the Appeal. As for reasons set out hereafter
we are allowing the Appeal, this Application will stand dismissed. The
Respondent has also filed I.A. No. 4 .of 2003 for revocation of leave granted
by this Court. As we have already finally heard the Appeal and the parties
F at great length, this Application will stand dismissed.

The Appellant-Bank has filed I.A. No. 7 of 2005. This is for permission
to produce additional documents. Both the parties, during the course of their
arguments, wanted to and referred to these documents. Therefore, Court has
looked at these documents. It must be mentioned that Respondent had also
G produced two compilations containing numerous documents. Court has also
looked at those documents.

The Division Bench in the impugned Judgment is mainly relying on the
observations of the learned single Judge in order to dismiss the Appeal.
H Therefore, it becomes necessary to see the Judgment of the learned Single
STATE BANK OF INDIA v. K.C. THARAKAN [VARI AV A, J.] l 021

Judge. A
The first aspect which must be dealt with is that the Respondent has
challenged the Order dated 5th March, 1969 of IIB for the first time in this
Writ Petition. Thus, this challenge was after a period of 29 years. IIB had
been made a party. IIB objected to the Order being passed against it. The
learned Single Judge deems it appropriate to pass the Order against IIB in the B
following terms:

"There should hardly be any doubt that the order of the IIB, which
is under challenge in the writ petition, was passed in the year 1969
whereas the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in the year
1998, after about 30 years. Such long gap between the time of passing C
of the order and filing of writ petition cannot ordinarily be overlooked.
The Court must have very strong reasons to entertain a challenge to
that order after such long time. In the writ petition petitioner has not
been able to give any special reason for such a long delay caused by
him in filing the writ petition for challenging the order of the IIB, D
what has orally been contended by the petitioner in this context is
that the orders passed by the IIB and by the SB! being result of the
same incident and emanating from a common enquiry conducted by
the SB! through Sri B. K. Ghosh, no separate proceeding could have
been initiated by him for impugning the order of the IIB. This
contention of the petitioner has sufficient force. Though the writ E
petition has been filed basically for impugning the award given by
the Industrial Tribunal but what was involved in the proceedings
before the Tribunal was the alleged wrongful discharge of the petitioner
from Banks service, it was for this reason, that so much time was
taken by the petitioner in filing the writ petition. Facts leading to F
petitioner's discharge from service and for the cancellation of his
.... examination result of 1968 examination and debarring him from 1969,
1970 and 1971 examinations of the IIB are almost the same except
for the fact that petitioner's discharge from service was basically for
his filing the complaint with the IIB against Shri T. D. Barna, agent
of the SB! in relation to his role as supervisor of 1968 examination. G
The incident leading to both the actions by the SB! and by the llB
though is one still there existed somewhat separate grounds for action
taken by the IIB and the SB! against the petitioner."

Thus the Court itself notes that the Respondent has not been able to give any
special reason for filing a Writ Petition against llB after such a long delay. H
1022 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A The oral explanation that the Order passed by the II B and by the Appellant-
Bank is arising out of the same incident and emanating from a common
enquiry is one which was merely required to be stated to be rejected. It is
beyond comprehension how the learned Single Judge could have accepted
such an explanation. The Respondent had raised a dispute which had been
B referred to the Industrial Tribunal. The only question which had been referred
to was whether the action of the Management in discharging the Respondent
was justified. In such proceedings IIB's Order would neither be considered
or dealt with. Even if the Respondent had succeeded before the Tribunal, the
Order of the IIB would have still stood. The Respondent could have challenged
that Order in a Court of competent jurisdiction if he had so desired. Such a
C challenge had nothing to do with the action taken by the Appellant-Bank.
The enquiry was also not the same. IIB passed its Order on the basis of some
inquiry conducted by it. The Appellant-Bank did not act on that inquiry or
the report. From the inquiry report, it can be seen that the Respondent had
asked for a copy of the report of IIB. It had been held that that inquiry report
was entirely irrelevant for the purposes of the disciplinary proceedings initiated
D by the Appellant-Bank. Further, the action of the Appellant-Bank was not
arising out of the same incident. JIB took action on the ground that the
Respondent had cheated during the course of the examination. The Appellant-
Bank took action on the ground that serious allegations were made against a
senior officer which affected the interest of the Bank. The two causes of
E action were separate and distinct. It is surprising that the learned Single
Judge could not understand such a basic thing and has chosen to pass an
Order against JIB after a period of 29 years. The learned Single Judge has
also overlooked the fact that IIB is a private body against whom a Writ could
not lie. What was also ignored was that in the earlier Writ Petition No. 615
of 1975 the Respondent had made IIB a party but had chosen not to ask for
F any reliefs against them. Having chosen not to ask for any reliefs in the
earlier Writ Petition, it was not open to the Respondent to claim reliefs in
another Writ Petition filed subsequently. The Order passed against IIB is
entirely unsustainable and unjustified.

On merits, the learned Single Judge holds that no charge has been
G made out inasmuch as under the Standing Orders disciplinary action could
only be taken provided the act was prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. The
learned Single Judge holds that the letters which were written by the
Respondent were in respect of Shri Barua's conduct as Invigilator in the
examination being held by IIB. The learned Single Judge holds that the said (
H Mr. Barua was acting in a different capacity and the complaint by the
STATE BANK OF INDIA v. K.C. THARAKAN [VARIAVA, J.] 1023
Respondent was also as an examinee in the examination. The learned Single A
Judge holds that the Appellant-Bank was not concerned with the entire incident
as the allegations against Shri Barna being not in his capacity as an Officer
of the Bank but in his capacity as an Invigilator. The learned Single Judge
thus holds that no charge had been made out. Attention of the learned Single
Judge was drawn to a decision of this Court in the case of S. Govinda Memon B
v. Union of India and Anr., reported in AIR (1967) SC 1274. In this case,
disciplinary action was taken against a person in respect of something done
by him at a time when he was on deputation. An argument that the act
committed while on deputation could not be the basis of disciplinary action
against that person was repelled by this Court. It was held that it was not
necessary that disciplinary action should only be in respect of acts committed C
in the course of discharge of his duty in that organization. It was held that
disciplinary action could be taken for any act or omission, even if committed
somewhere else, which.reflects on the reputation of the Officer or his integrity,
good faith or devotion to duty. This authority squarely covered the dispute
in hand. Yet the learned Single Judge chooses to differentiate this authority
on the ground that there is· no similarity in the provisions of the Service Rules D
in the two cases and on the ground that the Standing Order does not contain
provisions permitting disciplinary action for acts not done in the course of
duty. The learned Single Judge fails to appreciate that the question was not
whether Service Rules or Standing Orders contained such a provision. The
ratio of the Judgment, which was binding on the learned Single Judge, was E
that the concerned act or omission need not be during the discharge of duties
of the organization. An allegation of corruption against a senior Officer would
affect the interest of the Bank. In our view, it makes no difference whether
the allegation of corruption is in respect of the work of the Bank or in respect
of the conduct/work of the Officer outside the Bank. The reputation of the
Bank gets affected if an allegation is made that its Officer/s are corrupt. F
Thus, an allegation of corruption against a senior Officer is one which would
affect the interest of the Bank. The learned Single Judge was thus absolutely
wrong in holding that no charge had been made out.

Even otherwise, it must be remembered that the Respondent had raised G
a preliminary objection on the ground that no charge had been made out. The
Tribunal had dismissed that objection. The Respondent had filed a Writ
Petition. The High Court, by its Order dated I 0th March, 1988, dismissed
that Writ Petition. The High Court held that it was a frivolous objection. Thus
the question whether the charge was made out or not had been finally decided
against the Respondent. It was no longer open to the Respondent to raise the H
1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
...
A same contention again. Also to be remembered that this was a Writ Petition
against the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. The jurisdiction of the
Writ Court was limited. The Writ Court was not sitting in Appeal over the
Award of the Industrial Tribunal. As it has been finally held in the earlier
Writ Petition that the charge was maintainable, all that was required to be
seen was whether the principles of natural justice had been followed and
B whether there was sufficient evidence to show that the charge was proved. In
this case, there was no question of violation of principles of natural justice.
The Respondent had been given the charge-sheet. He had been given an
opportunity to appear before the Inquiry Committee. He chose to stay away
from the inquiry proceedings. He was thereafter given a show-cause-notice.
c He replied to that show-cause-notice. His reply was considered and he was
thereafter discharged. He has then filed an Appeal. The Appeal filed by the
Respondent was also dismissed. Even before the Industrial Tribunal he remains
absent without any just cause. Thus there was no violation of the principles
of natural justice. In the inquiry proceedings evidence had been lead to show
that the Respondent had mis-conducted himself. It is on the basis of the
D material available that the Inquiry Officer had submitted his report. It is on
the basis of material available that the Industrial Tribunal passed its Award.
Thus, the interference by the High Court was uncalled for.

For what is stated above, it is clear that the High Court erred in directing
reinstatement. We maintain that, on facts of this case, discharge was justified.
E
However, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that and Order of
reinstatement was required to be passed, this was a fit case where there
should have been no order directing payment of full back wages. The
Respondent himself had got the proceedings, before the Industrial Tribunal,
stalled from 1974 to 1988 by raising a frivolous objection. Thereafter it was
F the Respondent who kept on asking for adjournments and finally did not
appear before the Industrial Tribunal. Even though the Award was passed on
23rd January, 1990 the Review Petition was filed only on 26th September,
..----
1994, i.e. after four years. Thus, it is the Respondent who is to blame for the
gross !aches and delay. In such circumstances back wages could never have
been granted. Also, during the period the Appeal was pending before the
G High Court, the Appellant-Bank learnt that the Respondent was gainfully
employed. It appears that Respondent floated a Company by name Savio
System Pvt. Ltd. and became its Managing Director. He borrowed monies
from a Bank in the name of the Company. The Respondent dishonestly never
pointed out these facts when he made a cl_aim for back wages. After the
H Appellants bring it to the notice of the Appellate Court the Respondent admits •
STATE BANK OF INDIA v. KC. THARAKAN [VARIAVA, J.] 1025
that he had floated the Company and become the Managing Director. He, A
however, claims that this was only to help his sister invest her funds and that
he was receiving no monies from the Company. This story is unbelievable.
These facts were before the Appellate Court. Unfortunately, they have not
adverted to or dealt with them.

That brings us to the question whether, the newly constituted Tribunal, B
with Shri I. P. Brahma as the Presiding Officer, was properly constituted and
had jurisdiction to entertain and try the dispute. In view of our findings on
facts, as given above, this question has become academic. We therefore express
no opinion on this aspect and leave the question open.

For the above reasons, we find that the impugned Order as well as the C
Orders of the learned Single Judge are unsustainable and are accordingly set
aside. The Award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 23rd January, 1990 is
restored. The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. There will be no order
as to costs.
D
v.s.s. Appeal disposed of.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "service law"Sign in to search