LexS. VASUNDARA versus CANARA BANK AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
0
A
S. VASUNDARA
v.
CANARA BANK AND ORS.
OCTOBER 28, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Service Law :
Canara Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal)
c Regulations-Regulations 4, 6, 7,8 and I I-Employee convicted on a
criminal charge-Authorities invoking Regulation 11 and imposing
penalties-Held, since there is already a finding of conviction recorded
by the Criminal Court, though the sentence was suspended by the High
Court on appeal, authorities still competent to take action under
Regulation ll.
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 20461 of ! 996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.9.96 of the Madras High
Court in W.P. No.17011 of 1994.
E
A. T.M. Sampath for the Petitioner.
•
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
F
These special leave petitions have been filed against the Order of the
Division Bench of the Madras High Court made on September 9, 1996 in
Writ Petition Nos. 17011/94 and 9851/87.
The admitted facts are that the petitioner, while working as a Manager
G of the respondent-Bank, was charged on November 3, 1986 for an offence
punishable under Sections 420, 467, 471, 477 IPC read with Section 5{l){d)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act'). The trial
Court convicted the petitioner for an offence under Section 420 and 477A
IPC and 5(2) read with 5(l)(d) of the Act and sentenced to undergo one
year imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs. 3,000 on each of the
H counts. On appeal, the High Court suspended the sentence on September
16
..
S. VASUNDARAv. CANARA BANK
17
15, 1987 and enlarged the petitioner on bail. The respondents had issued a A
show cause notice pending trial to the petitioner on September 24, 1987.
The petitioner challenged the same which was subsequently withdrawn.
After the conviction, they issued another notice to the petitioner on
September 12, 1994. The petitioner challenged the show cause notice in
the above writ petition. The High Court in the impugned order dismissed
the same. Shri Sampath, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that B
the conviction on the basis of a criminal charge is not one of the specified
enumerated misconducts. Removal does not lead the conviction due to the
misconduct under the Regulation. Therefore, Regulations 6,7 and 8 would
not apply to the facts in this case. Consequently, Regulation 11 of the
Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations does
not get attracted. The action taken, therefore, is without jurisdiction. We C
find no force in the contention. It is true that the High Court had suspended
the operation of the judgment but nonetheless the conviction recorded by
the trial Court cannot be obliterated. It is still conviction but only redemption
is that by operation of the suspension, the petitioner is not required to
undergo the sentence pending appeal in the High Court. Regulation 11
~as~:
D
"Regulation 11 :-
Not withstanding anything contained in Regulation 6 or
Regulation 7 or Regulation 8 the Disciplinary Authority may E
impose any of the penalties SPECIFIED IN Regulation 4, if the
Officer employee has been convicted on a Criminal Charge or
on the strength of facts or conclusions arrived at by a judicial
trial."
The respondents have specifically stated that on account of the F
conviction by the criminal court on a criminal charge, the action is sought
to be taken for taking action under the Regulations. The non obstante
clause engrafted in Regulations 11 takes out the necessity to follow the
procedure prescribed in Regulation 6, 7 or 8, as the case may be, by
excluding the operation of Regulations 6, 7 and 8. The authority is G
empowered to take action against the delinquent employee for imposition
iJf any of the penalties specified in Regulation 4. Only in two cases,
Regulation I l could be invoked, namely, conviction of a criminal charge
or on the strength of facts of conclusions arrived at by a judicial trial. In
view of the fact that criminal court had recorded the conviction of the
appellant for offences under Sections 420, 477 A and 5(2) read with Section H
18
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.
A 5(1)(d) of the Act. The invocation of Regulation II stands applicable.
It is then contended that the conviction must be such that leads to the
criminal misconduct under the Regulation and then only the action could
be taken. We find no force in the coExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.