JAGDISH LAL GAMBHIR versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 12 S.C.R. 435 · Decided: 06-10-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 12 S.C.R. 435 
JAGDISH LAL GAMBHIR 
v. 
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6975 of 2009) 
OCTOBER 6, 2015 
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Service Law- Dismissal- Tran sf er of official (Assistant 
General Manager) of one Bank to another Bank, on c 
amalgamation of the two Banks~ The transferred official was· 
placed as a Scale Ill officer in the transferee Bank- Initiation 
of departmental proceedings against the official by the 
transferee Bank - Charge-sheet issued by the Assistant 
General Manager of the tra_nsferee Bank ~ Subsequently D 
dismissal from service - Dismissal whether vitiated - Held: 
The charge-sheet was issued as per the rules and regulation 
of the transferee Bank and the same would be applicable to 
the transferred official - The transferee Bank was justified in 
initiating disciplinary proceedings in respect of alleged E 
irregular transaction because the erstwhile Bank could not 
take any decision in respect of the alleged irregularity, due 
to amalgamation of the Banks - Thus, the dismissal order 
was not vitiated - Punjab National Bank Officer Employees 
(Discipline and Appeal Regulations), 1977. 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The admitted position is that the appellant 
was a Scale-Ill officer in the respondent/transferee Bank G 
while the rank of the Assistant General Manager in the 
respondent Bank is Scale-V. The appellant could only 
have been placed in Scale-Ill in terms of his 
responsibilities and keeping in mind the corresponding 
H 
435 
436 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
A scale upon the amalgamation of the erstwhile Bank with 
the respondent Bank. [Para 23] [444-C] 
2. There is no allegation by the appellant that he 
was either reduced in rank or that his placement was 
B incorrect or any similar grievance. That being the 
position, the appellant cannot contend that his 
placement in the respondent Bank was erroneous and 
therefore the issuance of the charge-sheet by the 
Assistant General Manager in the respondent Bank was 
C vitiated in any manner. [Para 24] [444-G-H] 
3. The rules applicable to the appellant were the 
Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and 
Appeal) Regulations, 1977. In terms of these Regulations, 
o the disciplinary authority of the appellant was the 
Assistant General Manager (P). That being the position, 
merely because the appellant was an Assistant General 
Manager in the erstwhile Bank does not mean that the 
Regulations of 1977 would not be applicable to him or 
E that the Assistant General Manager (P) in the respondent-
Ban k could not have issued a charge-sheet. The 
appellant became an employee of the respondent Bank 
and was subject to the discipline of all its rules and 
regulations, including those pertaining to misconduct. 
F [Paras 25 and 27] [445-A-C; F] 
4. It cannot be said that the allegations against the 
appellant had already been inquired into by the erstwhile 
Bank and therefore the respondent-Bank could not 
G reopen issues relating to the alleged misconduct and 
hold an inquiry into them. There were a large number of 
transactions which were alleged to be irregular and in 
which the appellant was said to be involved. The 
appellant has not pointed out which were the 
H 
JAGDISH LAL GAMBHIR v. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & 437 
ORS. 
transactions which were the subject matter of concern A 
in the erstwhile Bank and which were the transactions 
which were the subject matter of inquiry by the 
respondent-Bank. It is the admitted position that in 
respect of one alleged irregular transaction, the erstwhile 
Bank could not take any der.ision one way or the other B 
due to the amalgamation of that Bank with the 
respondent-Bank. [Para 28] [445-G-H; 446-A,C,E] 
Chairman, Canara Bank, Bangalore v. M. S. Jasra 
(1992) 2 SCC 484: 1992 (2) SCR 68- relied on. 
C 
K. I. Shephard v. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 431: 
1988 (1) SCR 188 ; Union of India v. Mohd. 
Ramzan Khan(1991) 1SCC588:1990 (3) Suppl. 
SCR 248; Managing Director, ECIL v. B. 
D 
Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727: 1993 (2) Suppl. 
SCR 576 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
1988 (1) SCR 188 
referred to. 
Para 4 
E 
1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 248 
referred to. 
Para 13 
1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 576 
referred to. 
Para 13 
1992 (2) SCR 68 
relied on. 
Para 26 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
6975 of 2009 
·Fram the Judgment and Order dated 24. 07 .2006 of the G 
High Court at Calcutta in F. M.A. No. 388 of 2001 
Dinesh

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