A significant legal case involving Canara Bank and the General Manager has now been reconsidered by the Appellate Authority. The Supreme Court issued a groundbreaking judgment on the matter, shedding light on the authority to impose penalties in disciplinary proceedings. Learn more about the implications of this ruling in the full summary below.
Facts
- On 08.08.2008, FAC was posted and working as a Scale I officer at Swarajpuri, Gaya Branch.
- Regular inquiry commenced in May 2009.
- Preliminary inquiry held on 28.04.2009 with a defence representative nominated by FAC participating.
- Inquiring Authority was Senior Manager L.N. Jha and Presenting Officer was Manager S.K. Sinha.
- Inquiry report dated 02.07.2009 found FAC guilty of charges.
- Punishment of compulsory retirement inflicted on FAC on 18.8.2009.
- Suspension of FAC with effect from 20.09.2008 in contemplation of departmental proceedings.
- Review application by FAC rejected on 30.07.2010.
- Interlocutory Application filed by FAC to amend writ petition allowed by High Court.
- Defence witness Deepak Kumar Singh examined in the case.
- FAC submitted explanation denying misconduct on 10.03.2009.
- Four management witnesses examined in the departmental inquiry.
- Canara Bank and its functionaries have filed appeals challenging the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in LPA Nos. 1430 of 2013 and 849 of 2013.
- The judgment quashed the order of punishment passed against the respondent by the General Manager of the Bank, remitting the matter to the Deputy General Manager for further proceedings.
- The respondent, appointed as a Clerk in 1978 and subsequently promoted under bank rules, had faced disciplinary action leading to the current appeals.
- The learned Single Judge held that the General Manager’s order was justified under Regulation 5(3) of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976.
- However, it was noted that the grounds raised by the respondent in his appeal and review petition were not addressed by the Appellate Authority or the Reviewing Authority.
Also Read: Interpretation of Government Premises in Eviction Proceedings
Analysis
- The matter requires reconsideration by the specified and authorized Appellate Authority as well as the Reviewing Authority.
- The Appellate Authority and Reviewing Authority are legally obligated to decide all issues raised by the petitioner in the appeal and review petition.
- Departmental proceedings were initiated by the Deputy General Manager as the Disciplinary Authority.
- The order of punishment was passed by the General Manager who was higher than the Disciplinary Authority.
- The Bank challenged the order in LPA No 1430 of 2013 before the Division Bench.
- The General Manager’s action of imposing the punishment was challenged by the Division Bench.
- Regulation 5 of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976, outlines the authority to institute disciplinary proceedings and impose penalties.
- The Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge and remitted the matter to the Deputy General Manager for further proceedings.
- The Division Bench has clarified that the Disciplinary Authority or any higher authority can impose penalties on an officer or employee as per Regulation 5(3).
- Authority or any other authority higher than it can impose penalties on any officer employee as specified in regulation 4.
- Regulation 5(3) indicates the authority of the General Manager to pass orders of punishment.
- Division Bench’s decision that the General Manager lacks this authority was deemed unjustified.
Also Read: Ensuring Fairness: Court’s Discretion in Document Production
Decision
- The appeals were successful and allowed.
- The Division Bench’s order was overturned.
- The Single Judge’s decision to send the matter back to the Appellate Authority for review was reinstated.
- Each party will bear their own costs.
Also Read: Legal Battle Over Elephant Corridors
Case Title: CANARA BANK Vs. KAMESHWAR SINGH (2020 INSC 18)
Case Number: C.A. No.-000066-000067 / 2020
