Service Law:

State Bank of Patiala (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979: Regulation 68(ii)(x)(b)(iii).

Departmental enquiry-Natural justice-Statements of two witnesses Copies of Not supplied to delinquent However, he was permitted to peruse them and take notes therefrom more than three days prior to their examination No objection raised by delinquent during enquiry-Held: Regulation substantially complied with No prejudice caused to delinquent No interference with enquiry and order of removal called for.

Departmental enquiry-Temporary misappropriation By bank officer Statements of witnesses and complainant-Recorded at preliminary enquiry Charges established by enquiry officer inspite of non-examination of complainant-Held: Finding by High Court that it was a case of 'no evidence as complainant was not examined, unsustainable in law.

Administrative law:

Natural Justice-Action in violation of rules/regulations/statutory provisions Incorporating principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem) Validity of Principles laid down-Substantive provisions-Normally to be complied with Procedural provision-Neither substantial nor mandatory-If no prejudice caused no interference of court called for Substantial compliance with such provision enough.

Natural justice Rules/Regulations/Statutory provisions Not incorporating principles of But such principles implied by nature of order/action-Held no opportunity"/"no hearing-Amounted to total violation of such principles "No adequate opportunity"/"no fair hearing"-Amounted to violation of only a facet of such principles-Order/action-Former case would be invalid-Latter case-Test of prejudice to be applied-If no prejudice caused, order action would be valid.

Natural Justice-Principles of Mere technical violation of Held: set- ting aside punishment and entire enquiry would be negation of justice and not justified.

Natural justice-Audi alteram partem-Object of To ensure fair hearing and no failure of justice Where State or public interest called for curtailing of rule, court must balance such interest with requirement of natural justice before arriving at an appropriate decision.

Judicial review-Scope of Natural Justice-Principles of Question of compliance with-Held: scope was the same whether it was writ petition under Article 226 or civil suit.

Mandatory provision Waiver of Could be waived by person concerned if it was in public interest.

Words and Phrases: "Waiver" Meaning of.

The respondent was working as Manager of a branch of the appellant-Bank. Father of one B had taken loan from handed the appellant- Bank and after his death B came and handed over the amount to the respondent in discharge of the loan. The respondent was subsequently transferred to another branch. B discovered that the amount paid by him to the respondent was not credited to his/his father's account. Soon thereafter the amount was deposited in the Bank in the name of B. The Appellant-Bank's case was that having received the amount from B, the respondent did not credit the said amount into Bank account immediately, though he issued a letter to the effect that since the crop loan amount had been adjusted, the entry regarding mortgage of land of the loanee in favour of the Bank be revoked.

Before ordering a regular oral enquiry, the Bank had directed two of its officers to conduct a preliminary enquiry against the respondent. The said officers examined witnesses including B and the Patwari of the village and also gathered necessary documentary evidence. On the basis of the preliminary report, a regular enquiry was ordered. The Bank and the respondent examined their respective witnesses. B, who was the complainant, did not appear as a witness at the regular enquiry. However, the Patwari was examined as a witness at the regular enquiry. Though the copies of the statements of B and the Patwari were not supplied to the respondent, he was permitted to peruse the same more than three days prior to the commencement of the examination of witnesses.

At the conclusion of the enquiry, a report was submitted by the enquiry officer holding the charges of temporary misappropriation established. The competent authority accepted the report and ordered the removal of the respondent from service. An appeal and a review submitted by the respondent were dismissed. The respondent thereupon instituted a suit challenging the order of removal. The Trial Court decreed the suit on ground of violation of Rule 68(ii) (x) (b) (iii) of the State Bank of Patiala (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 because of non-supply of the statements of witnesses and documents to the delinquent. The appellate Court confirmed the decree. The second appeal filed by the appellant-Bank was dismissed by the High Court which, while affirming the findings of the courts below, assigned one more ground that inasmuch as B was not examined, it was a case of 'no evidence'. Aggrieved by the High Court's judgment the appellant-Bank preferred the present appeal.