LexSURJEET SINGH BHAMRA versus BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2016] l S.C.R. 879 SURJEET SINGH BHAMRA v. BANK OF INDIA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No.5038 of2009) FEBRUARY 08, 2016 [J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] Service law - Punishment order - Challenge to - Allegation of commissio11 of several irregularities by appellant-Branch Manager - Issuance of memo to appellant - Thereafter, annou11cement of Bank of India Volu11tary Retirement Scheme, 2000 - In terms thereof, application for voluntary retirement to be made before 14.12. 2000 and the cut-off date for the Bank to complete all the formalities was 30.12.2000 - Appellant applied for VRS on 16.11.2000 whereas he was served with the charge-sheet 011 02.03.2001 which was admitted by him - Subsequently, order passed by the Chief Manager on 20. 03.2001 imposing the punishment of reduction of his basic pay by five stages on the appellant - Thereafter, appellants application for voluntary retireme11t accepted by the Bank on 19.06.2001 - Punishment order challenged by the appellant - Jn writ petition and writ appeal, punishment order upheld by the High Courts - On appeal, held: Scheme is partly mandatory for its compliance for the employee whereas directory for its compliance for the Bank - Relationship of employee and employer between the appellant and the Bank continued till 19.06.2001 - Thus, Bank was within its rights to take any action under the service rules against the appellant up to 19.06.2001 - Bank was within its rights to issue a charge-sheet to the appellant on 02. 03.2001 - Since the memo was served on the appellant prior to introduction of the Scheme, the disciplinary proceedings were rightly i11itiated after coming illfo force of the Scheme - Bank was right in considering and accepting the application on 19.06.2001 - Thus, the action taken was just, legal and proper - Having regard to the nature and gravity of the charge and admission of the charge by appellant, the punishment imposed on the appellant was just and proper, and does not call for interference - Bank/Banking. 879 A B c D E F G H 880 A B c D E SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I S.C.R. Bank/Banking - Bank of India Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 - Relevant clauses therein - Mandatory or directory - For ensuring their compliance by the employee and the Bank - Held: If a thing is required to be done by a private person within a specified time, same would ordinarily be mandatory but when a public functionary is required to perform a public function within a time- frame, the same would be held to be directory unless consequences therefor are specified - Thus, the Scheme is partly mandatory for its compliance for the employee and directory for its compliance for the Bank. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 On applying the principle of law in * BllfWlllll Singh case and **Visitor, AMU & Ors. case for interpreting the clauses of the Scheme that if a thing is required to be done by a private person within a specified time, same would ordinarily be mandatory but when a public functionary is required to perform a public function within a time-frame, the same would be held to be directory unless consequences therefor are specified, it is found that the Bank of India Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 is partly mandatory for its compliance so far as the employee- appellant is concerned whereas it is directory for its compliance so far as the Bank-respondent is concerned. [Para 38, 42] [892-A, 893-C] Ba/want Singh & Ors. vs. Anand Kumar Sharma & Ors. (2003) 3 SCC433:2003 (1) SCR 653; Visitor, AMU & Ors. vs. K.S. Misra (2007) 8SCC 593:2007 (9) SCR 763 - relied on. F 1.2 When the clause, which provides for filing an application by the employee by a particular date is seen, this clause is mandatory in its compliance for the employee because if an employee does not file the application before the due date then he has no right to file the application thereafter, whereas the clause G which requires a Bank to pass the orders on the application by a specified date and complete all the formalities, it is directory in its compliance, In other words, it is not mandatory for the Bank to necessarily complete all the formalities before the due date specified in the clause and if the Bank fails to do it within the time but completes the formalities after the specified date, it would H be permissible for the Bank to do so and the act so done would SURJEET SINGH BHAMRA v. BANK OF INDIA
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.