CANARA BANK AND ORS. versus SWAPAN KUMAR PANI AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 631 · Decided: 24-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA, DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

't 
CANARA BANK AND ORS. 
A 
11. 
SWAPAN KUMAR PAN! AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 24, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
B 
'> 
Service Law: 
Banking Services--Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and c 
Appeal) Regulations, 1976-Regulations 18 and 21-Bank employee charged 
with misconduct-Exonerated by order of disciplinary authority-Power of 
review under Regn. 18-When exercisable-Held: Exercisable in respect of 
a proceeding which has not attained finality-Order exonerating the employee 
having attained finality, hence, Reg. 18 not applicable-Moreover, purported 
order of review was passed after 6 years, which was much beyond the period D 
of limitation and also not within reasonable time-Banking Companies 
-t 
(Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. 
Misconduct-Inter-linked charges-Departmental enquiry-Scope of'-: 
Three charge sheets-Charges levelled in third charge sheet in 2 parts-
E 
First part was covered by the first charge sheet wherefrom the employee had 
already been exonerated-Second part was inter-linked with the first part-
Hence, High Court right in quashing the third charge-sheet-But it erred in 
granting liberty to the employer to initiate fresh enquiry, moreso, when 
alleged misconduct was committed more than a decade back. 
F 
-~ 
First Respondent working as Accountant in Appellant-Bank was charged 
with misconduct for unauthorised removal of certain special bearer bonds pledged 
into the Bank. But in the departmental proceedings, he was found to be not guilty 
pursuant to which he was exonerated by an order of the Disciplinary Authority. 
Subsequently another charge-sheet on identical charges was issued and again 
departmental proceeding initiated but no action was taken despite submission of G 
report by the Inquiry Officer. Managing Director of the Bank, the Reviewing 
), 
·-( 
Authority, set aside the earlier order exonerating Respondent in purported exercise 
-~ 
of powers under Regulation 18 of the Canara Bank Officer Employees' 
{Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 on the basis of fresh evidence allegedly 
631 
H 
_, 
632 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] 2 S.C.R. 
A revealed from the CBI report regarding the said bearer bonds. Consequently, the 
Bank framed charges for the third time by issuing a fresh charge sheet First 
Respondent questioned the validity of third charge sheet, by filing a writ petition. 
High Court quashed the third charge sheet but having regard to the seriousness 
of charges, denied backwages to the First Respondent and further granted liberty 
B to the Bank to initiate fresh inquiry. Both the parties filed appeals before this 
Court. 
Allowing the appeal of First Respondent in part while dismissing the appeal 
of Appellant-Bank, the Court 
c 
HELD: I.I. The Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) 
Regulations, 1976 having been framed under Section 19 of the Banking 
Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 have statutory 
force. An authority exercising such statutory power was required to act within 
the four corners thereof and was bound by the limitations prescribed therein. 
Regulation 18 could have been applied in a case where the power of review is 
D exercised in respect of a proceeding which has not attained finality. In this case, 
however, admittedly two charge sheets were issued and at least in one of them the 
First Respondent was exonerated. The said order attained finality. The second 
one was not pursued despite a report having been submitted by the Inquiry Officer 
evidently because of the first disciplinary proceeding. As the First Respondent 
E was exonerated there was no question of enhancement of punishment and in that 
view of the matter second part of Regulation 18 had also no application. As no 
order had been passed extending the time, evidently the power under Regulation 
21 had also not been exercised. (637-F; 638-F-H] 
1.2. Noticeably the First Respondent was exonerated by an order dated 
F 29.3.1989 whereas the purported order of review was passed on 25.7.1995, Le. 
after a period of 6 years, which was much beyond the period of limitation. The 
power was also not exercised within a reasonable time. (638-H; 639-A) 
2. Furthermore, the charges levelled against the First Respondent are in 2 
G 
parts; (i) that he had on 6.11.1985 removed 20 special bearer bonds pledged by 
the Managing Director of Mis Utkal Iron & Steel Industries from the strong 
room of the bank; and (ii) out of those s

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