BILASPUR RAIPUR KSHETRIYAGRAMIN BANKANDANRversusMADANLAL TANDON

                         [2015] 7 S.C.R. 86


A   BILASPUR RAIPUR KSHETRIYAGRAMIN BANKANDANR
                                 v.
                       MADANLAL TANDON
                  (Civil Appeal No. 4467 of 2015)
B
                           MAY 15, 2015
              [M. Y..EQBAL AND S. A. BOB DE, JJ.)

           Service Law: Misconduct - Charge-sheet -
c Punishment - Removal from service - Plea of respondent-
  employee in writ petition that along with charge-sheet, neither
  the list of documents nor the documents sought to iJe relied
  upon were supplied - High Court quashed order of removal
  - Held: The records clearly showed that the documents which
D were the basis of charges leveled against the respondent
  were not supplied to the respondent- High Court was right in
  holding that order of removal was not sustainable.

          Dismissing the appeal, the Court
E
         HELD: 1. Indisputably, no documents were
  supplied to the respondent along with the charge-sheet
  ~n the basis of which charges were framed. Some of
  the documents were given during departmental inquiry,
F but relevant documents on the basis of which findings
  were recorded were not made available to the
  respondent. The list of documents and witnesses were
  also not supplied and some of the documents were
  produced during the course of inquiry. Admittedly, show
G cause notice was served along with 17 charges, but all
  the documents were not supplied to the respondent. The
  appellant was not able to demonstrate that the above
  documents were supplied to the respondent even during
  the course of inquiry. The High Court rightly came to the
H conclusion that the order of punishment cannot be
                             86
  BILASPUR RAIPUR KSHETRIYA GRAM IN BANK AND                   87
           ANR. v.. MADANLAL TANDON

sustained in law. However, taking into consideration the A
fact that the respondent was out of employment since
1991, a lump sum payment of Rs.5,00,000/- towards the
salary would meet the ends of justice. [Paras 9, 10) (90-
D-H; 91-A-B]
                                                          B
       CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
4467of2015.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 17.02.2012 of the
High Court of Judicature at Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur in Writ.   c
Appeal No. 147of2010.

        Akshat Shrivasatava, Sarbajit Datta (For Manjeet
Kirpal) for the Appellants.

      T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas (For Nikhil Nayyar) for D
the Respondent.                ·

       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       M. Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Leave granted.                       E
       2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the
judgment and order dated 17th February, 2012, whereby
Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in· the writ
appeal preferred by the appellants upheld the order of the F
learned Single Judge and directed payment towards
respondent's claim of salary up to Rs.5,00,000/- with all
consequential benefits.

         3. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent
was working as a Field Supervisor in the appellant Bank since G
1981. In February, 1984, a charge-sheet was issued to him
for having committed misconduct and after a departmental
inquiry, an order dated 5. 7.1984 was passed by the Disciplinary
Authority imposing punishment of stoppage of his two annual H
88          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 7 S.C.R.


A increments. Thereafter a second charge-sheet was issued to
  the respondent in November, 1987 alleging that the respondent
  had committed several financial irregularities in various loan
  cases.An inquiry was conducted, wherein fourteen charges
  were found proved against the respondent and three charges
B were not found proved. Consequently, the punishment of
  removal from service was inflicted against the respondent on
  1.10.1991. Respondent preferred an appeal before the Board
  of Directors of the appellant Bank, but the same was
  dismissed.
c
             4. The respondent, therefore, moved the High Court by
     way of writ petition, inter alia contending that both the charge-
     sheets being identical, the second inquiry was not competent.
     It was also contended that along with the second charge-sheet,
D    neither the list of documents nor the documents sought to be
     relied upon were supplied. It was also contended by the
     respondent-writ petitioner that appropriate opportunity was not
     afforded to him to have inspection of the relevant documents
     and as such the respondent was not in a position to reply the
E    said show cause notice effectively and to defend him in the
     inquiry. Learned Single Judge of the High Court rejected his
     first contention and held that the charges were not identical
     and, therefore, the second inquiry was competent. However,
F    it was held that along with the charge-sheet and imputation of
     charges, there was no list of documents and list of witne~ .es
     were also not supplied as such the respondent was not afforded
     an opportunity to put forward his case in response to show
     cause notice along with the charge-sheet. Observing that the
G    object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government
     servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in
     imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from
     service, learned Single Judge of the High Court quashed the
     orders of removal passed by the appellant and allowed the
H    writ petition of the respondent with all consequential benefits.
 . BILASPUR RAIPUR KSHETRIYAGRAMIN BANK AND                           89
     ANR. v. MADANLAL TANDON [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

        5. Aggrieved by aforesaid decision, the appellants A
preferred writ appeal, wherein Division Bench of the High
Court, after perusing the record, found that although the show
cause notice was served along with 17 charges, but no
documents were supplied along with the show cause to the
respondent. Even the list of documents sought to be relied B
during the inquiry was not supplied along with the show cause.
The Division Bench opined that it is trite law that when a
delinquent employee is facing disciplinary proceeding, he is
entitled to be afforded with a reasonable opportunity to meet
the charges against him in an effective manner. If the copies C
of the documents are not supplied to the concerned employee,
it would be difficult for him to prepare his defence and to cross-
examine the witnesses and point out the inconsistencies with
a view to show that the allegations are false or baseless.
                                                                      D
         6. The Division Bench of the High Court further observed
that in the instant case neither the list of witnesses nor the list
of documents was supplied to the respondent along with the
charge-sheet. Though during the course of inquiry some
documents were supplied to him but those documents, on                E
which the reliance was placed by the Inquiry Officer for holding
various charges proved, were not supplied to the respondent.
The High Court further observed that the respondent is out of
employment since 01.10.1991 and his claim for arrears of              F
salary, as stated by counsel for both the parties, would be more
than45-50 lakhs. The Bank's money is public money and a
huge amount cannot be paid to anyone for doing no work. The
principle of "no work no pay" has been evolved in view of the
public interest that an employee who does not discharge his           G
duty is not entitled to arrears of salary at the cost of public
exchequer. By way of impugned judgment, the High Court,
therefore, concluded that in the facts and circumstances of the
case a lump-sum payment of Rs. 5,00,000/-towards the claim
of salary, would be just and proper in this matter. The               H
90        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 7 S.C.R.


A respondent was also held to be entitled to all other
  consequential benefits.

         7. Hence, the present appeal by special leave by the
  appellant Bank and its Board of Directors. It is worth to mention
B here that the respondent has not come to this Court against
  the impugned judgment passed by the High Court.

         8. We have heard Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, learned
  counsel forthe appellants and Mr. T.V.S. Raghavendra Sreyas,
c learned counsel for the respondent. We have also perused
  the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High
  Court. The only controversy that falls for our consideration is
  as to whether the documents, which were the basis of the
  charges leveled against the respondent, were supplied to the
D respondent or not?

          9. Indisputably, no documents were supplied to the
  respondent along with the charge-sheet on the basis of which
  charges were framed. Some of the documents were given
E during departmental inquiry, but relevant documents on the
  basis of which findings were recorded were not made available
  to the respondent. It further appears that the list of documents
  and witnesses were also not supplied and some of the
  documents were produced during the course of inquiry.
F
          10. Admittedly, show cause notice was served along
  with 17 charges, but all the documents were not supplied to
  the respondent. A perusal of the impugned order will show
  that when the Division Bench, during the course of arguments,
G asked the learned counsel appearing for the appellants
  whetherdocumentsviz. P-21, P-25, P-23, P-19, P-30, P-31 &
  P-32 were supplied to the respondent, on the basis of which
  various charges have been held to be proved, learned counsel
  was not able to demonstrate that the above documents were
H supplied to the respondent even during the course of inquiry.
   BILASPUR RAIPUR KSHETRIYAGRAMIN BANKAND                          91
     ANR. v. MADANLAL TANDON [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

The Division Bench then following a catena of decisions of A
this Court came to the conclusion that the order of punishment
cannot be sustained in law. However, taking into consideration
the fact that the respondent was out of employment since 1991,
a lump sum payment of Rs.5,00,000/- towards the salary would
meet the ends of justice.                                      B

        11. After giving our anxious consideration, we do not
find any reason to differ with the finding recorded by the learned
Single Judge and also the Division Bench of the High Court in
writ appeal. Therefore, this civil appeal is dismissed.            C

Devika Gujral                                   Appeal dismissed.