NAGARAJ SHIV ARAO KARJAGI versus SYNDICATE BANK HEAD OFFICE MANIPAL AND ANR.

Citation: [1991] 2 S.C.R. 576 · Decided: 30-04-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
A 
NAGARAJ SHIV ARAO KARJAGI 
v. 
SYNDICATE BANK HEAD OFFICE MANIPAL AND ANR. 
APRIL 30, 1991 
B 
[K. JAGANNATHASHETTY ANDYOGESHWARDAYAL,JJ.] 
c 
Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) 
Act, 1970: Section 8----Folicy matters-Directions to Banks-Discip-
limiry matters-Awarding punishment to delinquent officers-Uniform 
policy-Feasibility of-Directive issued to comply with Central Vigi-
lance Commission's advice-Whether within jurisdiction-Whether 
contrary to Regulations governing such matters. 
Syndicate Bank Officer Employees (Disciplinary & Appeal) 
Regulations, 1976: 
D 
Regulations 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, JO-Punishment for misconduct-
Consultation with Central Vigilance Commission-Advice tendered by 
the Commission-Whether binding on disciplinary authorities. 
Cenrral Vigilance Commission Manual: Articles 22 and 23-
Guidelines for Banks-Major penalty cases-Consultation with 
E 
Commission-Advice tendered-Acceptance of-Whether obligatory 
upon disciplinary authority. 
F 
G 
The appellant was a Manager in one of the branches of the 
Respondent-Bank. In 1985, there was a departmental enquiry against 
him on the charges that he discounted a cheque for Rs.50,000 drawn in 
the name of some other person to accommodate one of his colleagues and 
when the cheque returned unpaid, he retained the same for about two 
months without taking action for realisation of the amount. An enquiry 
was conducted by the Commissioner for Vigilance Inquiry from the 
Central Vigilance Commission, following the procedure prescribed by 
the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees' (Disciplinary & Appeal) Regu-
lations. The Inquiry Officer submitted hfa report holding that the 
charges were proved against the appellant. The Respondent-Bank 
referred the matter to the Central Vigilance Commission for advice and 
the Commission reconunended the punishment of compulsory retirement. 
After considering the Inquiry Report and after affording oppor-
H 
tunity to the appellant, the Disciplinary Authority imposed on him the 
576 
• -.; 
----
" 
SHIVARAO v. SYNDICATE BANK 
577 
penalty of compulsory retirement. Ou appeal, the appellate authority 
concurred with the findings recorded and the punishment imposed. The 
appellant filed a Writ Petition before the High Court challenging the 
order of his compulsory retirement. The High Court declined to 
interfere with the order. Hence the present appeal, by special leave. 
The appellant also filed a Writ Petition before this Court challeng-
ing the validity of the direction dated 21. 7 .1984 issued by the Finance 
Ministry, following which the Respondent-Rank had imposed on him 
the penalty of compulsory retirement . 
On behalf of the appellant/petitioner it was contended that the 
advice given by the Central Vigilance Commission was blindly followed 
by the Respondent-Bank as it was made binding on it by virtue of the 
directions dated 21. 7. 84 issued by the Ministry of Finance and in that 
process the merits of the case and the statutory regulations governing 
departmental inquiries were ignored. It was also contended that the 
subject matter of the inquiry was only regarding irregularities in bank-
ing practice and since the interest of the Bank was not affected as he had 
the money recovered and credited to the Bank with interest thereon, the 
alleged misdemeanour did not warrant any major penalty like com-
pulsory retirement, which even according to the Respondent-Bank, was 
too harsh. 
On behalf of the Respondent-Bank it was contended that it had 
independently considered the material on record notwithstanding the 
advice given by the Central Vigilance Commission and since the orders 
did not refer to the circulars or to the advice of Central Vigilance 
Commission, the punishment imposed on the appellant/petitioner was 
not vitiated by extraneous influences. 
Allowing the matters, this Court 
HELD: 1. The Respondent-Bank itself felt that the compulsory 
retirement recommended by the Central Vigilance Commission was too 
harsh and excessive on tlie appellant/petitioner in view of his excellent 
performance and unblemished antecedent service. The Bank made two 
representations, one in 1986 and another in 1987 to the Central Vigi-
lance Commission for taking a lenient view of the matter and to advise 
lesser punishment. Apparently, those representations were not accep-
ted by the Commission. The disciplinary authority and the appellate 
authority therefore had no choice in the matter. They had t

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