CHANAN SINGH versus REGISTRAR, CO-OP. SOCIETIES, PUNJAB & ORS.

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 685 · Decided: 18-03-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

685 
CHANAN SINGH 
A 
v. 
I 
REGISTRAR, CO-OP. SOCIETIES, PUNJAB & ORS. 
March 18, 1976 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD AND V. R. KRISHNA IYER. JJ.] 
B 
• 
Imputation of nlisconduct against bank·elnployee-Enqulry by Secretary of 
bank-Explanation accepted and proceedings dropped-Revival of proceedings 
by Managing Director-No present grievance of punitive, action-Writ petition 
premature. 
' t 
:tvfis.conduct was imputed to the appeUant by his employer, the second res· 
pondent. The then Secretary of the bank enquired into the allegations and, 
after issuing a notice to the appellant for showing cause against punishment, 
C 
accepted his explanation and dropped the proceedings. Thereafter, the Manag· 
ing Director of the Bank opined that the said Secretary was not empowered to 
punish a bank ·employee, and therefore, the proceedings culminating in the 
exoneration of the appellant were invalid. The proceedings. were revived, and 
the appellant was suspended. 
His writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 
was dismissed by the High Court. 
On appeal by special leave, the appellant 
challenged the revival of the proceedings against him, as illegal and opposed to 
natural justice. 
D 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD : ( 1) There is no present grievance of punitive action \Vhich can be 
ventilated in court. 
The \vrit petition is premature since no action has been 
taken finrtlly, ngain.,t the appellant. [687 A] 
• 
(2) The co-operative bank has not been able to show any po\Ver to sus· 
pend an employee pending an enquiry. If that be so, the suspension of the 
E 
appellant is plainly v.dthout the pale of law. [687BJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE; JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1137 of 1976. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 
14-8-75 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W. No. 3995 
of 1975. 
J. Ramamurthi for the Appellants. 
Janendra Lal and B. R. Agarwala for Respondents 2 and 3 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
KRISHNA IYER, J. 
This appeal, by special leave lends itself to 
a quick burial in view of the brief facts set out below'. 
G 
The appellant has been an employee of the second respondent. A 
notice was issued to him to show cause why disciplinary action should 
n?t be taken against him for certain items of misconduct imputed to 
him. 
The then Secretary of the bank, Shri Daljit Singh, enquired 
into the allegations. 
Thernafter, on April 1, 1975 the Secretary issu-
ed a notice to the appellant to show cause why his next increment 
H 
should not be stopped by way of punishment; A reply was sent by 
the appellant. by way of explanation and the Secretary accepting the 
explanation dropped the proceedings by order dated April 9, 197 5 
686 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1976] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
(Annexure III). 
Thereafter, the Managing Director taking the view 
that Shri Daljit Singh, Secretary, had no power to irillict punishment 
•, 
on the employees of the bank and that therefore the proceedings 
culminating in the exoneration of the appellaot were invalid issued a 
fresh memorandum which concluded thus: 
· • 
B 
"After considering the said enquiry 
report along with 
other relavant documents, I am provisionally of the view 
to impose upon you a penalty of dismissal from bank ser-
vices. 
Before doing so, you are asked to show cause 
within 21 days from the receipt of this memorandum, why 
on account of findings of the said Enquiry Officer, into the 
C 
charges, you should not be- dismissed from the bank ser-
vices. In case no reply is received within the prescribed 
period, it ·will be presumed that you have np reply in this 
· behalf and the proposed punishment will be imposed." . 
The appellant was also suspended on the same date, viz., 7th July 
D 
1975. 
Thereupon, a writ petition under Arts. 226/227 was moved by the 
• 
appellant challenging the revival of the proceedings against him as 
• 
E 
F 
G 
H 
illegal and opposed to natural justice. 
The first point raised in objection 
by the second respondent is 
that the writ petition. is premature . since no action has been taken 
finally 
against the appellant, the disciplinary proceedings are still 
pending and the explanation of the appellant is under consideration. 
It is only in the event of the appellant being punished that any griev-
ance can arise for him to be agitated in the proper forum. 
Other obstacles in the way of granting the .appellant relief were 
also urged before the High Court and before us, but we are not in-
clined to inv

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