- Case
- VINAYAK BALCHANDRA GHANEKAR v. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND 2 ORS (Bombay High Court, 10-03-2025)
- Law
- Constitution of India, Principles of Natural Justice.
Facts: Vinayak Balchandra Ghanekar, a Punjab National Bank employee, faced a departmental enquiry initiated shortly before his scheduled superannuation. The chargesheet, issued on June 15, 2018, pertained to his tenure at the Shirdi branch. Ghanekar requested time to inspect the voluminous records at Shirdi, but the bank initiated an internal enquiry on June 20, 2018, overlooking his request. The enquiry proceeded rapidly, with the bank submitting documents without witness testimony, and Ghanekar was given limited time to respond. The Enquiry Officer submitted a 169-page report overnight, and Ghanekar was dismissed on June 30, 2018, his last day of service. He was not provided a copy of the enquiry report before his dismissal.
Procedural Posture: Ghanekar challenged the dismissal order through a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, arguing that the departmental enquiry violated principles of natural justice. He sought to quash the dismissal order and subsequent orders passed by the Appellate and Reviewing Authorities.
Issue: Did the Punjab National Bank violate the principles of natural justice and Article 311 of the Constitution of India by conducting a hasty and unfair departmental enquiry against Ghanekar, particularly by failing to provide him with adequate opportunity to defend himself and by not supplying him with the enquiry report before his dismissal?
Holding: Yes, the High Court held that the departmental enquiry was conducted in an undue haste and violated the principles of natural justice. The court quashed the dismissal order and directed notional reinstatement with effect from June 30, 2018, along with compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs.
Reasoning: The Court found that the enquiry was a "farce" due to its speed and lack of fairness. The bank failed to provide Ghanekar with a reasonable opportunity to inspect documents, present his case, or receive the Enquiry Officer's report before his dismissal. The court emphasized that while procedural violations may not always vitiate an enquiry, substantive rights of the employee must be protected. Citing State Bank of Patiala and Others Versus S.K. Sharma and B. Karunakar, the court reiterated that denying an employee the right to receive the Enquiry Officer's report and a fair opportunity to respond is a breach of natural justice. The court was "shocked" by the bank's false claim that the report was supplied to Ghanekar. The court allowed the bank to conduct a fresh enquiry, ensuring full adherence to the principles of natural justice, and suggested appointing a new, independent Enquiry Officer.
