LexCHAIRMAN, GANGA YAMUNA GRAMIN BANK & ORS. versus DEVI SAHAI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 138 A CHAIRMAN, GANGA YAMUNA GRAMIN BANK & ORS. V. DEVI SAHAI Civil Appeal No. 940 Of 2009 B FEBRUARY 12, 2009 [S.B. SINHA. AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Service Law - Disciplinary inquiry - On charges of mis- conduct ~ Employee did not participate in the inquiry - Was J- 'c dismissed by employer-Regional Rural Bank - Dismissal challenged inter alia on ground that the disciplinary proce"- dure laid down in the guidelines issued by NABARD was not followed by employer-bank - High Court held that NABARD guidelines were mandatory in character and non-compliance D thereof had resulted in rendlpring the order of dismissal void - Propriety of - Held: Not proper - NABARD guidelines were issued only for guidance of Regional Rural Banks and were not mandatory in character - In any event, the employee was not prejudiced by reason of non-compliance thereof - Matter E remitted to High Court for consideration of other·contentions raised by the employee - Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 - s.30. Appellant-employer is a bank constituted and incor- porated under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. Re- -~ F spondent-employee was dismissed from service on charges of misconduct. He purportedly had not partici- pated In the disciplinary inquiry proceedings. Respondent challenged the dismissal on ground that G the disciplinary procedure laid down in the guidelines is- sued by the National Bank for Agricultural and Rural De- velopment (NAl3ARD) was not followed by the Appellant. In appeal to this Court, it was contended that the H 138 CHAIRMAN, GANGA YAMUNA GRAMIN BANK & ORS. 139 V. DEVI SAHAI - High Court, by the impugned judgment, committed a se- A rious error in holding that the guidelines issued by NABARD were mandatory in character and non-compli- ance thereof had resulted in rendering the order of dis- missal void. Allowing the appeal, the Court B HELD: 1. Appellant has been constituted under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. Regulations framed by it - t subject to the compliance of the statutory mandate con- tained in Section 30 of the Act have statutory force. The c provisions of the Act and the Service Regulations made by the appellant, therefore, form s·elf-contained Code. At the point of time when NABARD issued guidelines, it had nothing to do with the functionings of the Regional Rural Banks. [Para 9] [ 146-C, D, E] 2. Act No.1 of 1988, in terms whereof the 'National D -~ Bank' was defined and in terms whereof in.stead of con- suiting the Reserve Bank of India for the purpose of mak- ing regulation in terms of Section 30 of the Act, NABARD was required to be consulted, came into force only with effect from 28.9.1988. Again, the guidelines issued by E NABARD laying down the procedure to be adopted for disciplinary action in Regional Rural Banks were made part of the Regulations. Even after coming into force of Act No.1 of 1988, regulations were not amended. The re- spondent does not enjoy any status. The service condi- F ti~ms of employees of Regional Rural Banks are not pro- tected in terms of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The validity or otherwise of the regulations framed by appel- lant is not in question. In any event, respondent did not participate in the inquiry. [Paras 9, 10, 11] [ 146-D, E, F, G, G H; 147-A] 3. The respondent does not show how he was preju- diced. He was supplied with a copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer. He even did not submit any reply thereto. Notices had not only been published asking the respon- H - 140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R. A dent to take part in the disciplinary proceedings but also chance after chance had been given to him to respond to . the report of the Inquiry Officer. The NABARD guidelines having been issued only for the guidance of the Regional Rural Banks, the same was not mandatory in character B and in any event respondent was not prejudiced by rea- son of non-compliance thereof. [Para 11] [ 147-C, D, E] Bank oflndia vs. Apurba Kumar Saha (1994) 2 SCC 615 - relied on. !- c - 4. The High Court committed a serious error in pass- ing the impugned judgment. It is set aside accordingly. However, as it is stated that the respondent had raised several other c9ntentions before the High Court, the mat- ter is remanded to the High court for consideration of all D other contentions raised by the respondent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the disciplinary pro-
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.