Summary
An employee who declined three offered hearings after a court-ordered remand was not entitled to another hearing merely on compassionate grounds. The High Court’s further opportunity direction rewarded avoidable delay and was set aside. The Court noted the seriousness of the proved banking irregularities, while declining to reopen the earlier unappealed order that had originally required a penalty-stage hearing.
Issues
- Whether an employee who repeatedly declined offered hearings could demand a further opportunity under a general appeal to justice.
Held
- The Bank complied with the earlier court direction by offering hearings on three dates. The employee declined because he had appealed; having failed to avail those opportunities, he could not insist on another merely on the ground that justice demanded it. (¶¶ 5, 9–10)
- Fair opportunity does not require repeated fresh chances after deliberate non-participation. Compassion could not justify rewarding the delaying conduct in this case. (¶ 10)
- Ten proved charges involved serious financial irregularities, supporting the conclusion that removal was not unjust. The correctness of the earlier Single Judge order was expressly not examined because the Bank had not appealed it. (¶ 11–12)
Result
Bank’s appeal allowed. Division Bench’s direction granting an additional hearing opportunity set aside; earlier unappealed Single Judge judgment not reopened.