Case Note & Summary
The case involves a disciplinary proceeding against Kameshwar Singh, a Scale I officer of Canara Bank, who was charged with misconduct and compulsorily retired by the General Manager under Regulation 4(h) of the Canara Bank Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. The respondent challenged the punishment before the Patna High Court. The Single Judge found that the General Manager was competent to impose punishment under Regulation 5(3) but remitted the matter to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration as the appellate and reviewing authorities had not addressed the respondent's grounds. Both parties appealed. The Division Bench set aside the Single Judge's order and remitted the matter to the Disciplinary Authority (Deputy General Manager) on the ground that the General Manager, being higher than the Disciplinary Authority, could not impose punishment. The Supreme Court allowed the bank's appeal, holding that Regulation 5(3) clearly permits any authority higher than the Disciplinary Authority to impose penalties. The Court restored the Single Judge's order remitting the matter to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Authority to Impose Penalty - Regulation 5(3) of Canara Bank Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 - The Division Bench of the High Court erred in holding that the General Manager, being higher than the Disciplinary Authority, could not impose punishment. Regulation 5(3) expressly allows any authority higher than the Disciplinary Authority to impose penalties. The Supreme Court restored the Single Judge's order remitting the matter to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration. (Paras 12-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the General Manager, being an authority higher than the Disciplinary Authority, could impose punishment under Regulation 5(3) of the Canara Bank Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed; Division Bench order set aside; Single Judge order remitting matter to Appellate Authority restored
Law Points
- Regulation 5(3) of Canara Bank Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations
- 1976
- Authority to impose penalty
- Higher authority can impose penalty
Case Details
Civil Appeal Nos. 6667 of 2020 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 3647736478 of 2017)
S. Abdul Nazeer, Sanjiv Khanna
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against High Court order in disciplinary proceeding
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought setting aside of Division Bench order remitting matter to Disciplinary Authority
Filing Reason
Division Bench held that General Manager could not impose punishment as he was higher than Disciplinary Authority
Previous Decisions
Single Judge remitted matter to Appellate Authority; Division Bench set aside and remitted to Disciplinary Authority
Issues
Whether General Manager could impose punishment under Regulation 5(3) of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that Regulation 5(3) permits any authority higher than Disciplinary Authority to impose penalty
Respondent argued that General Manager lacked authority
Ratio Decidendi
Under Regulation 5(3) of the Canara Bank Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, the Disciplinary Authority or any authority higher than it may impose penalties. Therefore, the General Manager, being higher than the Deputy General Manager (Disciplinary Authority), was competent to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement.
Judgment Excerpts
Regulation 5(3) of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976, provides that the Disciplinary Authority or any other authority higher than it, may impose any of the penalties specified in regulation 4 on any officer employee.
Having regard to Regulation 5(3), the Division Bench was not justified in holding that General manager has no authority to pass the order of punishment.
Procedural History
Respondent was served chargesheet on 14.02.2009; inquiry held; Inquiring Authority submitted report on 02.07.2009 holding respondent guilty; General Manager imposed compulsory retirement on 18.08.2009; appeal dismissed on 22.03.2010; writ petition filed; Single Judge remitted to Appellate Authority on 14.07.2017; Division Bench set aside and remitted to Disciplinary Authority; Supreme Court allowed appeal on 08.01.2020.
Acts & Sections
- Canara Bank Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976: Regulation 4(h), Regulation 5, Regulation 5(3)
