CANARA BANK vs. KAMESHWAR SINGH

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  66­67   OF  2020 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 36477­36478 of 2017)  CANARA BANK AND ORS.        … APPELLANTS  VERSUS KAMESHWAR SINGH     … RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T S. ABDUL NAZEER, J. 1. Leave granted. Canara Bank and its functionaries have filed these appeals 2. Signature Not Verified challenging the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date: 2020.01.08 16:33:53 IST Reason: Judicature at Patna in LPA Nos. 1430 of 2013 and 849 of 2013, 2 dated 14.07.2017, whereby the order of punishment passed against the respondent  by  the   Appellate  Authority,  namely,   the   General Manager of the Bank, was quashed and the matter was remitted to the Disciplinary Authority, namely, the Deputy General Manager to proceed with the inquiry from the stage of receipt of the inquiry report and to conclude the proceedings in accordance with law.    3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are that the respondent was appointed on the post of Clerk with the Appellant­Bank in the year 1978 and was subsequently granted promotion under the relevant rules of the bank.  On 08.08.2008 the respondent was posted and working as Scale I officer of the bank at its Swarajpuri, Gaya Branch. He was put under suspension with effect from 20.09.2008 in view of the order passed by the Deputy General Manager of the Bank in contemplation of a departmental proceedings.  The respondent was served with a chargesheet dated 14.02.2009   containing   articles   of   charges   and   statement   of imputations to articles of charges.   The respondent submitted his explanation on 10.03.2009 denying the allegation of misconduct and praying therein that the proceeding initiated against him may 3 be dropped and order of suspension passed against him may be recalled.  4. However, the Bank not being satisfied with the explanation furnished   by   the   respondent,   decided   to   proceed   with   the departmental proceeding initiated against him. One Shri L.N. Jha, the   Senior   Manager   of   the   Bank   was   appointed   as   Inquiring Authority and one Shri S.K. Sinha, the Manager of the Bank was appointed as the Presenting Officer.  A preliminary inquiry was held on 28.04.2009.  Regular inquiry was commenced w.e.f. 18.05.2009. The   respondent   nominated   one   Shri   B.K.   Sinha   as   defence representative   to   participate   in   the   departmental   inquiry.     He participated in the said inquiry and presented the defence of the respondent. 5. In the departmental inquiry, four persons were examined as management witnesses. One Deepak Kumar Singh was examined as   defence   witness.   Apart   from   the   oral   testimonies   of   the witnesses, some material documents were also produced from both sides, which were  marked as management exhibits  and  defence exhibits respectively.    4 6. On the basis of the materials on record, the Inquiring Officer submitted   his   report   dated   02.07.2009   holding   the   respondent guilty of the charges. A copy of the inquiry report was forwarded to the   respondent   by   letter   dated   03.07.2009   issued   under   the signature   of   the   Deputy   General   Manager   and   Disciplinary Authority.     The   respondent   was   called   upon   to   file   his representation or submissions on the findings arrived at by the Inquiring   Authority.   Accordingly,   the   respondent   submitted   his representation/submissions. Thereafter, an order dated 18.8.2009 was passed by the General Manager and Disciplinary Authority, whereby   the   punishment  of   compulsory   retirement   was   inflicted upon the respondent in terms of Regulation 4(h) of the Canara Bank Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976   (for   short   ‘Discipline   and   Appeal   Regulations,   1976’).   The appeal preferred by the respondent was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 22.03.2010.  7. The   respondent   challenged   the   said   order   by   filing   a   writ petition before the High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10295 of 2010. During the pendency of this writ petition, review 5 application   filed   by   the   respondent   was   also   rejected   by   the Chairman­cum­Reviewing   Authority   by   order   dated   30.07.2010. The   Interlocutory   Application   filed   by   the   respondent   seeking amendment of the writ petition in order to assail the validity and correctness of the order passed by the Reviewing Authority was allowed by the High Court. 8. Learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the General Manager of the Bank was justified in passing the order in view of Regulation   5(3)  of   the   Discipline   and   Appeal  Regulations,   1976. However, the learned Single Judge found that neither the Appellate Authority nor the Reviewing Authority have answered the grounds taken on behalf of the respondent in his appeal and review petition respectively.     Therefore,   the   learned   Single   Judge   remitted   the matter,   at   the   first   instance,   to   the   Appellate   Authority   for reconsideration of the matter as under: “For the reasons recorded above, the matter requires reconsideration by the specified and authorized   Appellate   Authority   as   also   the Reviewing Authority.   They are under legal obligations to decide all the issues raised and grounds taken on behalf of the petitioner in his memo of appeal as also in review petition, which has not been done in the present case. 6 Since   the   matter   is   being   remitted   to   the appellate   authority,   at   the   first   instance, therefore, this Court is not inclined to decide other issues raised on behalf of the parties, which   have   been   noted   in   the   preceding paragraphs.” The Bank has challenged this order in LPA No. 1430 of 2013 9. before the Division Bench. The respondent has also challenged the order of the learned Single Judge in LPA No. 849 of 2013. The Division Bench after considering the rival contentions of the parties, has set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and remitted the matter to the Deputy General Manager to proceed with the inquiry from the stage of receipt of the inquiry report and thereafter to conclude the proceeding in accordance with law. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 11. The   Division   Bench   has   interfered   with   the   order   of   the learned Single Judge on the ground that the General Manager being an authority higher to Disciplinary Authority cannot exercise the power of the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, the Division Bench quashed the order of punishment and remitted the matter to the 7 Disciplinary Authority, namely, the Deputy General Manager for fresh consideration in accordance with law.  12. Regulation 5 of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976, provides for the authority to institute disciplinary proceedings and impose penalties, which is reproduced below: “5 Authority to institute disciplinary proceedings and impose penalties: (1) The   Managing   Director   or   any   other authority empowered by him or by general or special   order   may   institute   or   direct   the Disciplinary   Authority   to   institute disciplinary   proceedings   against   an   officer employee of the bank. (2) The   Disciplinary   Authority   may   himself institute disciplinary proceedings. (3) The   Disciplinary   Authority   or   any   other authority higher than it, may impose any of the penalties specified in regulation 4 on any officer employee.”                  ( Emphasis supplied ) It   is   clear   from   the   aforesaid   Regulation   5(3)   that   the 13. Disciplinary Authority or any other authority higher than it, may impose   any   penalties   specified   in   Regulation   4   on   any   officer employee.     In   the   instant   case,   the   departmental   proceedings against   the   respondent   were   initiated   by   the   Deputy   General 8 Manager   being   the   Disciplinary   Authority.   But   the   order   of punishment has been passed by the General Manager, who was higher than the Disciplinary Authority.  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.  14. In the result, the appeals succeed and are accordingly allowed. The order of the Division Bench impugned herein is set aside and the order of the learned Single Judge remitting the matter to the authorised Appellate Authority for reconsideration of the appeal is restored.   15. Parties to bear their respective costs.                              ……….……………………J.                (S. ABDUL NAZEER) ….…………………………J.  (SANJIV KHANNA) New Delhi; January 08, 2020.