State Bank of India Vs. Girish Chandra Das
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 20-21 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 10966-10967 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 10966-10967 of 1999)
Petitioner: State Bank of India
Respondent: Girish Chandra Das
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 20-21 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 10966-10967 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 10966-10967 of 1999)
Judges: S.B. MAJMUDAR & D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 04, 2000
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION LAW
Article 136,14,16 – Departmental enquiry – Preliminary issue of illegality decided by Tribunal – On appeal, High Court remanding matter – If issue regarding illegality of enquiry survives. Held that the issue survives. In fact all the questions shall remain open for Tribunal to decide. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned Solicitor General in support of the appeals as well as learned counsel for the sole respondent
3. In our view, when the matter was remanded by the High Court by the impugned order the entire question should have been kept open for decision of the Tribunal afresh including the question whether departmental enquiry was vitiated or not. In this view the findings on preliminary issue reached earlier by the Tribun-al about the alleged illegality of the departmental enquiry would not survive and all the questions including legality of the departmental enquiry and legality of the impugned punishment order will be re-examined by the Tribunal without being inhibited by the earlier findings of the Tribunal or the observations made by the High Court in the matter.
4. We make it clear that we make no observations on the merits of the controversy between the parties.
5. As the respondent was dismissed in 1987 it would be appro-priate to direct the Tribunal to decide the remanded proceedings after hearing the parties at the earliest and preferably within a period of six months from the receipt of a copy of this order at its end. We direct accordingly.
6. Order of the High Court remanding the proceedings will stand modified as aforesaid by treating the remand as an open one.
7. The Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Tribunal for information and necessary action.
8. The Civil Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
9. No costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned Solicitor General in support of the appeals as well as learned counsel for the sole respondent
3. In our view, when the matter was remanded by the High Court by the impugned order the entire question should have been kept open for decision of the Tribunal afresh including the question whether departmental enquiry was vitiated or not. In this view the findings on preliminary issue reached earlier by the Tribun-al about the alleged illegality of the departmental enquiry would not survive and all the questions including legality of the departmental enquiry and legality of the impugned punishment order will be re-examined by the Tribunal without being inhibited by the earlier findings of the Tribunal or the observations made by the High Court in the matter.
4. We make it clear that we make no observations on the merits of the controversy between the parties.
5. As the respondent was dismissed in 1987 it would be appro-priate to direct the Tribunal to decide the remanded proceedings after hearing the parties at the earliest and preferably within a period of six months from the receipt of a copy of this order at its end. We direct accordingly.
6. Order of the High Court remanding the proceedings will stand modified as aforesaid by treating the remand as an open one.
7. The Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Tribunal for information and necessary action.
8. The Civil Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
9. No costs.
