ALLAHABAD BANK versus PREM NARAIN PANDE AND OTHERS

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 481 · Decided: 19-10-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

ALLAHABAD BANK 
v. 
PREM NARAIN PANDE AND OTHERS 
OCTOBER 19, 1995 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.) 
Se1vice Law-Allahabad Bank (Discipline and Appeal) Regula-
tions,1976 as amended in 198(}--Regulations 4, 5(2), 6(21), (ii) and 7-Dis-
,ciplinary proceedings against Junior Management Scale-I officer intiated by 
Dy. General Manage,.....Asstt. General Manager competent to continue the 
proceedings-No restriction of right to appeal-No likelihood of con-
flict-Hence, valid. 
A 
B 
c 
The Respondent No.l a Junior Management Scale-I officer in the 
Appellant Bank was served with a change sheet in 1983, for his miscondnct 
as Manger of the Bank during 1979-80. The charge sheet was served on D 
him by the Dy. General Manager, Lucknow. While the enquiry was being 
conducted he was transferred to Ranchi, Bihar. After his transfer, the 
Asst. General Manager, Patna Zone took over as Disciplinary authority in 
respect of the pending enquiry-he also informed Respondent No.l on 
20.3.1986 that he bas been nominated by the competent authority to act as E 
the Disciplinary Authority in respect of the enquiry against him. On 
21.3.1986 after considering the report of the Enquiry Officer, the assistant 
General Manager, Patna Zone passed an order dismissing Respondent 
No.l from service. 
Respondent No.l challenged the order of dismissal by w•y of a writ F 
petition. Though he raised various contentions the High Court allowed 
the writ petition solely on the ground that Assistant General Manager was 
not competent to. pass the impugned order. 
In appeal to this Court the Appellant Bank contended that there was G 
nothing in the Regulations to suggest that disciplinary proceedings cannot 
be transferred to an equally competent authority and that the right of 
appeal is not whittled down since it can be entertained by a still higher 
authority as per Regulations. 
The employee contended that once the disciplinary proceedings were H 
481 
482 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
initiated by Deputy General Manager they had to be carried on to their 
logical end by the same authority and that abruptly in midstream after the 
en<1uiry report \Vas submitted proceedings could not have been transferred 
to Assistant General l\1anager, that in any case there was nothing on the 
record to indicate that the conlpetent authority had ordered continuation 
B of these disciplinary proceedings by a different authority, Hiat he came to 
know for the first time about the change only on 20th March, 1986 and 
before he could make any representation to that Authority on 21st March 
the impugned order was passed and that on the scheme of the Regulations 
the order of the High Court was perfectly valid and justified. 
C 
Allowing the appeal ,this Court 
HELD : 1. The High Court was wrong in assuming that under the 
Regulations it is the disciplinary authority which initiates the proceedings 
as per Regulation 6 (3) of Allahabad Bank (Discipline and Appeal) Regula-
tions ,1976 that has necessarily to complete the proceedings till the stage 
D of Regulation 7 and it is that very authority which must pass the final 
orders of penalty. [ 491-F] 
E 
F 
G 
2. The High Court has erred in taking the view that a change of 
disciplinary authority before completion of enquiry would whittle down the 
right of appeal available to the delinquent. [491-B) 
3. The High Court was wrong in assuming that ii is likely to result 
in two conflicting orders of two equally competent authorities since it is 
only a continuing proceeding. [490-F] 
4. Tl1e· proceedings are remanded to the High Court for fresh 
decision on merits on remaining contentions which may be canvassed by 
Respondent No.l against the impugned order. [492-B) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.6038 of 
1993. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.7.93 of the Allahabad High 
Court in W.P. No.3841 of 1986. 
G.L. Sanghi, Dhruv Mehta and S.K. Mehta for the Appellant. 
H 
M.L., Verma, R.P. Singh, R.K. Khanna, O.P. Srivastava, Akhilcsh 
ALLAHABAD BANK v. P.N. PANDE [S.B. MAIMUDAR,.I.] 
483 
Kumar Pamley, P.N. Puri and E.M.S. Anam (NP) for the Respondents 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B.MAJMUllAR, J. The appellant-bank by special leave has 
brought in challenge the order passed by the Lucknow Bench of the 
Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 3841 of 1986 decided on 30th 
Juiy 1993. The respondent no.l was the writ petitioner before the High 
Court. The short

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.