Supreme Court of India
TARA CHAND VYASversusCHAIRMAN AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1997 INSC 197
- Decided
- 24 February 1997
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the absence of cross‑examination does not constitute a manifest error when the disciplinary findings are based on documentary evidence duly provided to the employee, and the authority's reasoned conclusions are adequate.
Summary
The petitioner, a former Branch Manager of a Gramin Bank, was charged with fourteen counts of dereliction of duty for granting loans without securing adequate securities or ensuring supply of implements to borrowers, resulting in loss to the bank. An inquiry officer found all charges proved based on documentary evidence, and the disciplinary authority imposed punishment. The petitioner contended that he was denied the opportunity to cross‑examine the witnesses and that this constituted a manifest error warranting interference. The Supreme Court held that where the case against a service employee is founded on documentary records that were supplied to him, the lack of oral cross‑examination does not amount to a manifest error. It further observed that the enquiry officer had provided detailed reasons for each finding, satisfying the requirement of reasoned conclusions. Consequently, the Court found no ground to disturb the disciplinary order. The special leave petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the denial of an opportunity to cross‑examine witnesses in a disciplinary proceeding amounts to a manifest error justifying judicial interference.
- Whether documentary evidence alone, when supplied to the employee, suffices for a valid disciplinary finding.
- Whether the disciplinary authority is required to give detailed reasons for its conclusions.
Subjects
disciplinary proceedingscross‑examinationservice lawmanifest errorbankingdocumentary evidencereasoned findings
Judgment
A TARA CHAND VYAS
v.
CHAIRMAN AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY AND ORS.
FEBRUARY 24, 1997
B (K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]
Service Law :
Disciplinary proceedings-<Jpportunity to cross-examine the wit-
C nesses---Branch Manager of Bank-Subjected to disciplinary proceedings on
the charges that he derelicted in performances of duties in making payment
of loans to dealers without ensuring supply of implements to loanees and
deposit of adequate securities from dealers-<Jn the basis of report of Inquiry
Officer, disciplinary authority found the charges established and imposed the
proposed punishment-Plea of the delinquent that he was not given oppor-
D tunity to cross-examine the witnesses-Held, it cannot be said that there is any
manifest error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference--lm-
putation of charges was based on documentary evidence which was part of
-
the record and copies thereof had been supplied to delinquent.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C)
E No. 3291 of 1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.10.96 of the Rajasthan High
Court in D.B.C.S.A. No. 1009 of 1996.
B.D. Sharma for the Petitioner
F
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
The petitioner was imputed with the charges that while working as a
Branch Manager of the respondent-Gramin Bank, Khareri Branch between
March 17, 1982 to August 8, 1983, he derelicted in the performance of the
G duties in making payment of loans without ensuring supply of implements
to the loanees and deposit of adequate security from the dealers as a
consequence of which the respondent-Bank was put to loss. The enquiry
officer found that all the fourteen charges were proved. On the basis
thereof, the disciplinary authority found that the charges were established
H and imposed the proposed punishment. Impugned order came to be
472
T.C. VYAS v. CHAIRMAN AND DISCIPLINARY AU1HORITY 473
passed, on appeal, by the Board. The writ petition filed by the petitioner A
was dismissed. The Special Appeal No. 1009 of 1996 was also dismissed on
October 4, 1996 by the Division Bench of the Rajas than High Court, Jaipur
Bench, Thus, this special leave petition.
Economic empowerment is a fundamental right of the weaker sec- B
tions of the people, in particular the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes, ensured. under Article 46 as a part of social and economic justice
envisaged in the Preamble of the Constitution; the State is enjoined to
promote their welfare effectuated under Article 38, Distribution of
material resources to elongate that purpose envisaged in Article 39(b) is
the means for the development of the weaker sections. The banking busi- C
ness and services were nationalised to achieve the above objects. The
nationalised banks, therefore, are the prime sources and pillars for estab-
lishment of socio-economic justice for the weaker sections. The employees
and officers working in the banks are not merely the trustees of the society,
but also bear responsibility and owe duty to the society for effectuation of D
- socio-economic empowerment. Their acts and conduct should be in dis-
charge of that constitutional objectives and if they derelict in the perfor-
mance of their duty, it impinges upon the enforcement of the constitutional
philosophy, objective and the goals under the rule of law. Corruption has
taken deep roots among the sections of the society and the employees
holding public office or responsibility equally became amenable to corrupt E
conduct in the discharge of their official duty for illegal gratification. The
banking business and services are also vitally affected by catastrophic
corruption. The disciplinary measure should, therefore, aim to eradicate
the corrupt proclivity of conduct on the part of the employees/officers in
the public offices including those in banks. It would, therefore, be necessary p
to consider, from this perspective, the need for disciplinary actions to
eradicate corruption to properly channelise the use of the public funds, the
live wire for effectuation of socio-economic justice in order to achieve the
constitutional goals set down in the Preamble and to see that the corrupt
conduct of the officers does not degenerate the efficiency of service leading
to denationalisation of the banking system. What is more, the Nationalisa- G
tion of the banking service was done in the public interest. Every
employee/officer in the bank should strive to see that banking operations
or services are rendered in the best interest of the system and the society
·so as to effectuate the object of nationalisation. Any conduct that damages,
destroys, defeats or tends to defeat the said purposes resultantly defeats or H
474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 2 S.C.R.
A tends to defeat the constitutional objectives which can be meted out with
disciplinary action in accordance with rules lest rectitude in public service
is lost and service becomes a means and source of unjust enrichment at
the cost of the society. ...
Shri B.D. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that
B for proof of the charges none of the witnesses was examined nor any
opportunity was given to cross-examine them and the petitioner ·has dis-
puted his liability. As a consequence, the entire enquiry was vitiated by
manifest error apparent on the face of the record. We find no force in the
contention. The thrust of the imputation of charges was that he had not
C discharged his duty as a responsible officer to safeguard the interest of the
Bank by securing adequate security before the grant of the loans to the
dealers, and had not ensured supply of goods to the loanees. It is based
upon the documentary evidence which has already been part of the record
and copies thereof had been supplied to the petitioner. Under those
circumstances, we do not think there is that any manifest error apparent
D on the face of the record, warranting interference. It is then contended that
no reasons have been given in support of the conclusions to substantiate
the charges. The enquiry officer had elaborately discussed each charge and
--
given reasons which were considered by the disciplinary authority and
reached the conclusion that the charges were proved. So, had the appellate
E authority. They are not like civil Court.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
R.P. Petition dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "disciplinary proceedings"Sign in to search