CANARA BANK AND ORS. versus KAMESHWAR SINGH

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 36 · Decided: 08-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. ABDUL NAZEER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
36
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
CANARA BANK AND ORS.
v.
KAMESHWAR SINGH
(Civil Appeal Nos. 66-67 of 2020)
JANUARY 08, 2020
[S. ABDUL NAZEER  AND  SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Canara Bank Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal)
Regulations, 1976 – Regulations 4(h), 5(3) – Respondent was
working as Scale I officer with the appellant-bank – Put under
suspension for misconduct by the Deputy General Manager of the
Bank – Order passed inflicting the punishment of compulsory
retirement – Respondent’s appeal dismissed by the Appellate
Authority – Challenged by the respondent before the High Court –
Meanwhile, review of the respondent also rejected – Single Judge
remitted the matter to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration
concluding that the General Manager of the Bank was justified in
passing the order in view of Regulation 5(3) – Division Bench set
aside the order on the ground that the General Manager being an
authority higher to Disciplinary Authority cannot exercise the power
of the Disciplinary Authority and remitted the matter to the Deputy
General Manager – On appeal, held: It is clear from the Regulation
5(3) that the 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
Manager being the Disciplinary Authority – But the order of
punishment was passed by the General Manager, who was higher
than the Disciplinary Authority – Having regard to Regulation 5(3),
Division Bench not justified in holding that General manager has
no authority to pass the order of punishment – Order of the Division
Bench set aside and that of the Single Judge, restored.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. It is clear from the Regulation 5(3), Canara Bank
Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976
that the Disciplinary Authority or any other authority higher than
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 36
36
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
37
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 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. The order of the Division Bench is set aside and
the order of the Single Judge remitting the matter to the
authorised Appellate Authority for reconsideration of the appeal
is restored. [Paras 13, 14] [40-E-G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 66-67
of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Patna in LPA Nos. 1430 of 2013 and 849 of 2013.
Rajesh Kumar-I, Anant Gautam, Ms. Sakshi Gaur, Sorabh Dahiya,
Vibhu Sharma, Anmol Mehta,  Adv. for the Appellants.
Gaurav Agrawal,  Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S. ABDUL NAZEER, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Canara Bank and its functionaries have filed these 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, 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 Appellant-
Bank 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
CANARA BANK AND ORS. v. KAMESHWAR SINGH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
38
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
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 char

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