$~49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010133822019 + W.P.(C) 2254/2019 STATE BANK OF INDIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Siddharth Sougal, Mr. Mrinalini Tandon, Ms. Richa Mishra, Mr. Kashish Tewatia and Ms. Mrigna Tyagi, Advocates versus JAGDISH P. KANOJIA SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS. .....Respondent Through: Ms. Jyoti Dutt Sharma, Mr. Rahul Sharma, Ms. Esha Dutta, Mr. Hani Kant, Ms. Shikha Singh, Mr. Siddhartha Bhadula and Mr. Aryan Yadav, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 25.09.2026 1. The present petition has been preferred against the Award dated 24.05.2018 passed by the learned CGIT-cum-Labour Court-I, Dwarka Court Complex, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi in ID No. 100/2013. 2. Notably, the impugned Award came to be passed in the context of an industrial dispute raised by the workman, who expired during the pendency of the proceedings, on which the following reference was sent for adjudication: “Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, New Delhi in imposing the penalty of removal from service upon Shri Jagdish Prasad Kanojia vide their order dated This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/10/2026 at 11:25:51 17.08.2004 instead of accepting his resignation dated 13.11.2002 and in not paying terminal benefits to him is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled? 3. In the claim application, it was claimed by the petitioner that he had joined the services of State Bank of India on 22.07.1980 under the sports quota, being a football player of national repute. The claimant suffered injuries, for which he underwent treatment during the period 2001-2002. It was claimed that the claimant could not join duties on account of his ill- health and was suffering from depression and was served with a charge- sheet on 06.07.2002. As he continued to remain unwell, he could not obtain assistance from the Union or any other official of the Bank. It was further claimed that verbal assurances were given to him by the disciplinary authority and other officials that a lenient view would be taken in case he submitted his resignation and that his resignation would be accepted and terminal benefits would be released. Though he submitted his resignation, the same was not accepted and, rather, enquiry proceedings were continued on the allegation of unauthorised absence. The claimant was ultimately removed from service with effect from 03.05.2001 vide order dated 17.08.2004. The claimant accordingly prayed that his pension be settled and the departmental proceedings as well as the order of removal be set aside. On summons being served, the management appeared and filed its written statement, wherein a preliminary objection was taken on the ground of limitation. The management denied having given any assurance to the claimant regarding acceptance of his resignation or payment of terminal benefits. It was stated that, commensurate with the gravity of the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/10/2026 at 11:25:51 misconduct, the claimant was imposed the punishment of “removal without notice” under the Bipartite Settlement vide order dated 17.08.2004. 4. Learned tribunal framed following issues for consideration (i) Whether enquiry conducted against the claimant was just, fair and proper? (ii) Whether punishment awarded to the claimant commensurate to his misconduct? (iii) As in terms of reference. 5. While the claimant examined himself and also filed the affidavit of his wife, Ms. Radha Kanojia, the management did not lead any evidence in to challenge the assertions made in the claim. The management was proceeded ex parte on 07.03.2017. The said order was subsequently set aside by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 31.07.2017. Thereafter, despite more than six opportunities having been granted to the management to lead evidence including on the domestic enquiry allegedly conducted, no evidence was led. Finally, on 17.01.2018, the AR of the management, Shri Inderjit Singh, made a statement that the management did not wish to adduce evidence on the preliminary issue and would instead advance arguments. During the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, the claimant expired on 17.03.2018 and his legal heirs were brought on record vide order dated 10.04.2018. 6. The learned Tribunal noted that the management by not leading any evidence had rather concealed the enquiry proceedings as neither the report of the enquiry officer was placed nor the enquiry officer was examined. Infact, it was noted that the abysmal state of affairs existed even during the domestic enquiry proceedings wherein after serving chargesheet, no evidence was led on behalf of the management. Even if the claimant had not This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/10/2026 at 11:25:51 participated, the management was still required to prove the chargesheet in the enquiry proceedings. Infact, it was conceded on behalf of the management that prior to the passing of order of removal from services, no show cause notice was served on the claimant. Finding the enquiry proceedings to be in violative of principals of natural justice, it was held that the inquiry was not conducted in a fair manner and accordingly, while referring the decision of supreme Court in State of UP vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha1, the enquiry proceedings were held to be illegal. The relevant extract of the said decision is as under: - “28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents.” 7. While the management has claimed that it was the claimant who had absented himself in the inquiry proceedings, the conduct would show that neither in the domestic inquiry nor before the proceedings before the tribunal, the management led any evidence or confronted the claimant with any documentary evidence. The lackadaisical approach of the management was further noted in the impugned award, where it was noted that despite the 1 (2010) 2 SCC 772 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/10/2026 at 11:25:51 said contentions being raised on behalf of the claimant during the final arguments, still no effort was made by the management to produce any records or to seek permission from the Tribunal. 8. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to refer the documents, filed alongwith the petition, she fairly concedes that none of those documents saw the light of the day in the proceedings before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the same do not deserve to be considered. 9. Finding, no ground of interfere with the impugned award, the same is upheld. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. The amount lying deposited with the Registry be released to the respondent. 10. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J SEPTEMBER 25, 2026 sn This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/10/2026 at 11:25:51