Undisclosed Material In Departmental Inquiry Vitiates Dismissal Order: Gauhati HC

Relying on undisclosed evidence post-closure of proceedings to discredit a key defense witness strikes at the core of natural justice and invalidates disciplinary action. The Gauhati High Court quashed the dismissal of a bank official after finding that the inquiry officer secretly considered an undisclosed retraction letter to invalidate crucial defense testimony.

A single-judge bench of Justice Kaushik Goswami evaluated a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, challenging the dismissal of a State Bank of India Branch Manager under Rule 67(j) of the State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules, 1992. The Court scrutinized whether procedural defects in departmental inquiries, specifically the non-disclosure of adverse materials received post-evidence, violate constitutional and statutory guarantees of fair hearing.

Inquiry Flawed By Undisclosed Post-Hearing Retraction Letter

The High Court held that the reliance placed by the Inquiry Officer on a letter received after the closure of evidence without furnishing a copy to the delinquent officer vitiated the entire departmental proceeding.

The Court has following directions:

"52] Accordingly, the Enquiry Report dated 11.01.2018 submitted by the Enquiry Officer (respondent No. 4), the order dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Disciplinary Authority (respondent No. 2), whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service under Rule 67(j) of the Service Rules, 1992, and the appellate order dated 11.06.2018 passed by the Appellate Authority (respondent No. 1) are hereby set aside and quashed.

53] It is, however, noticed that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2021. Consequently, a direction for reinstatement in service is neither necessary nor feasible at this stage. The petitioner shall be treated as having continued in service, notionally, up to 31.10.2021, for the purpose of determining his service and retiral entitlements.

54] The disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner having been initiated while he was in service, the respondents shall be at liberty, if otherwise permissible under Rule 19(3) of the Service Rules, 1992, to continue and conclude the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law. Any such proceeding shall be conducted from the stage at which the petitioner is required to be afforded a fair and effective opportunity to adduce and establish his defence, keeping in view the directions contained in the earlier judgment and order dated 07.06.2016 passed in WP(C) No. 3748/2014.

55] In conducting such enquiry, the respondents shall ensure that all material sought to be relied upon against the petitioner is duly disclosed to him and that he is afforded reasonable opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to respond to any subsequent material which may have a bearing upon the determination of the charges. The disciplinary proceedings shall thereafter be concluded strictly in accordance with law and without being influenced by the findings recorded in the enquiry reports or orders which have been set aside by this Court.

56] The petitioner’s retiral and other consequential service benefits shall be determined in accordance with the applicable Rules and shall abide by the final outcome of the disciplinary proceedings, if continued under Rule 19(3). The respondents shall thereafter pass appropriate orders regarding such benefits in accordance with law.

57] The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The Enquiry Officer relied upon material adverse to the petitioner without furnishing the same to him and without affording him an opportunity to explain, rebut or otherwise deal with the same. The defect is substantive and has caused demonstrable prejudice to the petitioner."

Highlighting the statutory duty during departmental proceedings, the Court noted that Rule 68 of the State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules, 1992 explicitly mandates full disclosure and fair opportunity regarding new or recalled evidence. It referred to precedent in Tirlok Nath v. Union of India and Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India to emphasize that access to relevant documents is vital for an effective defense, a principle reaffirmed in Santosh Kumar Singh v. Union of India ( "(2018) 6 GLR 232": 2017 CaseBase(DEL) 1377) and Hiren Chandra Talukdar v. State of Assam.

Addressing the management's argument on procedural flexibility under State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma ( "(1996) 3 SCC 364": 1996 CaseBase(SC) 2155) and K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India, the Court distinguished the cases, observing that where material adverse to defense credibility is introduced post-hearing, failure to disclose it causes real, non-technical prejudice.

Background

The dispute originated when the petitioner, while serving as Branch Manager at SBI Goreswar Branch, was issued a charge-sheet alleging unauthorized financial transactions and misappropriation. Following an initial inquiry leading to dismissal, the High Court in an earlier writ petition set aside the dismissal and directed the continuation of inquiry from the stage of examining a key defense witness, Shri Hareswar Rajbongshi.

During the remitted inquiry, the defense witness gave testimony favoring the petitioner. However, after the evidentiary stage concluded and written briefs were submitted, the witness sent a letter retracting his testimony. The Enquiry Officer relied on this undisclosed retraction to brand the witness as unreliable and found the petitioner guilty, culminating in a fresh dismissal order affirmed in appeal.

The High Court held that secretly using the retraction letter to neutralize court-permitted defense evidence violated Article 311(2) principles enshrined in Samarandra Kishore Endow v. State Bank of India. Consequently, the High Court set aside the dismissal order and appellate decision, granting liberty to conduct fresh proceedings from the stage of defense rebuttal within four months.

Case Details:
Case No.: WP(C) NO. 2035 OF 2019
Neutral Citation: 2026:GAU-AS:12311
Case Title: Sri Subhash Chandra Koch v. The State Bank of India & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S Bharali, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. G Jalan, Advocate.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(GAU) 1160