IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 21956/2017 (S-DE) BETWEEN MRS. SAROJA N MURTHY W/O L. NARASIMHA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, BRANCH HEAD, SERVICE BRANCH CORPORATION BANK, MYSURU 570009 RESIDING AT:
NO.369, A AND B BLOCK NAVILU ROAD, KUVEMPU NAGAR MYSURU 570023.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI AMBAJI RAO NAAJRE, ADVOCATE) AND 1. CORPORATION BANK HEAD OFFICE, P.B. NO.88 MANGALADEVI TEMPLE ROAD, PANDESHWAR, MANGALURU 575001 BY MANAGING DIRECTOR & CEO 2. THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY CORPORATION BANK HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION DIVISION HEAD OFFICE, P.B. NO.88 MANGALADEVI TEMPLE ROAD, PANDESHWAR, MANGALURU 575001 BY DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER 2. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY CORPORATION BANK HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION DIVISION HEAD OFFICE, P.B. NO.88 MANGALADEVI TEMPLE ROAD, PANDESHWAR, MANGALURU 575001 BY GENERAL MANAGER 3. INQUIRING AUTHORITY H.NO.32, YAMUNA COLONY, KUDAPPANKUNNU P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695043 BY MR. TITUS MATHEW AGM (RETIRED-CORPORATION BANK) 4. PRESENTING OFFICER SENIOR MANAGER PAD, (PF, GRATUITY AND PENSION) HEAD OFFICE, P.B. NO.88 MANGALADEVI TEMPLE ROAD PANDESHWAR MANGALURU 575001 BY MS. SHWETHA CHAUHAN 5. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA DIVISION OFFICE JEEVAN PRAKASH BANNIMANTAPA, MYSURU-BENGALURU ROAD, MYSURU 570015, BY DIVISIONAL MANAGER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SUNDARA SWAMY & SRI RAMDAS, ADVOCATES, FOR R1 TO R5 SRI H.N. KASAL, ADVOCATE FOR R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS FOR DOMESTIC INQUIRY INITIATED BY R2 AGAINST THE PETITIONER VIDE COMMUNICATION DTD.19.8.2016 VIDE ANNEX-G AND COMMUNICATION DTD.25.11.2016 VIDE ANNEX-L THEREBY APPOINTING R4 AS INQUIRY AUTHORITY VIDE COMMUNICATION DTD.21.4.2017 VIDE ANNEX-P.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING.
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner is before this Court praying for the issuance of writ of certiorari and to quash the entire Domestic Enquiry initiated by respondent No.2 against the petitioner vide Communication dated 19.08.2016 at Annexure-G and Communication dated 25.11.2016 vide Annexure-L and Communication vide Annexure-P dated 21.04.2017 appointing the Inquiry Authority.
3. By proceedings dated 19.08.2016 imputation of charges were issued to the petitioner whereby certain allegations of misconduct on account of failure of the petitioner to follow the proceedings in the sanction of loans and also sanctioning loans in excess of the limits vested in her as a Branch Manager and also in respect of certain other procedural irregularities. The petitioner being aggrieved has set out a reply on 31.08.2016 alleging that the entire proceedings is vitiated as no documents and details of witnesses have been provided.
4. By Communication dated 25.11.2016 vide Annexure-L to the writ petition, the Disciplinary Authority has enclosed not only Articles of Charges, but also a Statement of Imputation and the list of documents relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority to demonstrate the charges and copies of the documents and the list of witnesses are forwarded to the petitioner and the petitioner was called upon to submit her defence in writing within 10 days from the receipt of the said letter.
5. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was said to have been preferred alleging violation of principles of natural justice and that a short time is granted to prepare a defence. The said appeal also came to be rejected on the ground that there was no provision to set aside the letter of charges. Under these circumstances the petitioner is before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the enquiry is sought to be hurriedly completed without affording full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to defend herself, as otherwise the same would result in serious and severe consequences.
7. In view of Annexure-G, a query is posed to the learned counsel, as to whether the same has to be understood as making a false statement by the employer and that the contents of Annexure-G are not furnished? The counsel was also queried as to whether such an objection has been raised by the petitioner? It was fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no such objection has been made. He would contend that despite the same, the petitioner is even otherwise entitled to the copies of the documents and that the documents are necessary as they pertain to the period which is five years ago.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the writ petition is premature and is not maintainable. The contention on behalf of the respondents merits consideration as it seen that no rights of the petitioner have been adjudicated nor any of her rights been infringed. It is not the case of the petitioner that the show cause notice issued to the employee, is one without jurisdiction or that enquiry itself is by an Incompetent Authority.
9. At this juncture, it is relevant to note the observations of the Apex Court in the case of NATWAR SINGH Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND ANOTHER – (2010) 13 SCC 255, wherein it has been pleased to opine as follows in paragraphs 26, 29 and 30.
“26. Even in the application of the doctrine of fair play there must be real flexibility. There must also have been caused some real prejudice to the complainant; there is no such thing as a merely technical infringement of natural justice. The requirements of natural justice must depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject-matter to be dealt with and so forth. Can the courts supplement the statutory procedures with requirements over and above those specified? In order to ensure a fair hearing, courts can insist and require additional steps as long as such steps would not frustrate the apparent purpose of the legislation.
29. It is thus clear that the extent of applicability of the principles of natural justice depends upon the nature of inquiry, the consequences that may visit a person after such inquiry from out of the decision pursuant to such inquiry.
30. The right to fair hearing is a guaranteed right. Every person before an authority exercising the adjudicatory powers has a right to know the evidence to be used against him. This principle is firmly established and recognized by this Court in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. V. CIT. However, disclosure not necessarily involves supply of the material. A person may be allowed to inspect the file and take notes. Whatever mode is used, the fundamental principle remains that nothing should be used against the person which has not been brought to his notice. If relevant material is not disclosed to a party, there is prima facie unfairness irrespective of whether the material in question arose before, during or after the hearing. The law is fairly well settled if prejudicial allegations are to be made against a person, he must be given particulars of that before hearing so that he can prepare his defence. However, there are various exceptions to this general rule where disclosure of evidential material might inflict serious harm on the person directly concerned or other persons or where disclosure would be breach of confidence or might be injurious to the public interest because it would involve the revelation of official secrets, inhibit frankness of comment and the detection of crime, might make it impossible to obtain certain clauses of essential information at all in the future.”
10. The entire attempt by the petitioner appears to a dilatory tactic adopted by the petitioner to scuttle the enquiry by hook or by crook. The prejudice alleged is the petitioners skewed perception of justices. No real prejudice is caused to the petitioner as prima facie, all the materials relied upon by the employer in the enquiry appear to have been supplied to the petitioner. Thus there being no prejudice caused, the instant writ petition is an abuse of the process of law. The petition, even otherwise wholly devoid of merits.
11. If that be the case no lis has arisen between the parties to the writ petition. The writ petition is certainly premature and it is accordingly held so. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner would after disposal of the writ petition make a request that the respondents be directed to expedite the enquiry.
13. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that they have no objection to expedite the enquiry.
14. In view of the above, the 2nd respondent is directed to expedite the hearing and dispose of the enquiry. At any rate the consideration and disposal of the enquiry shall be within the outer limit of four months from today.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE SBS/-