LexTHE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY-CUM-REGIONAL MANAGER AND ORS. versus NIKUNJA BIHARI PATNALK
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY-CUM-REGIONAL
B
c
MANAGER AND ORS.
v.
NTKUNJA BIHARI PATNAlK
APRIL 15, 1996
[B.P . .JEEVAN REDDY AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.1.j
Service Law :
Central Bank of India Officer Employee's (Discipline and Appeal)
Regulations, 1976 : Regulations 3 and 24.
Misconduct-Delinquent Bank Of{tce1-Allowed overdrafts and passed
cheques involving substantial amounts biyond his authority-Held : act
amounted to misconduct-Proof of any loss not necessary-Such acts could
D not be treated as mere eTTors of judgment.
E
F
G
Punishment-Bank Office1-Di.r111issed for acting beyond his auth01ity
in allowing overdrafts and passing cheques-Several of which became sticky
and i1recoverable-Relief-Request for reducing his punishment having regard
to his age (37 years )--Rejected by Supreme Court.
The respondent was an officer in Scale-I in the service of the Appel-
lant-Bank. While he was working as the Branch Manager, he was
suspended pending enquiry and ten charges were communicated to him.
He denied all of them. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and on the basis
of his report the appropriate authority dismissed the Respondent from
service. The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court which
was allowed. Aggrieved by the High Court's judgment the appellant
preferred the present appeal.
A.llowing the appeal, this Court
HELD 1.1. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of
discipline and a breach of Regulation 3 of the Central Bank of India
Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. It con-
stitutes misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 24. No further proof
of loss is really necessary though as a matter of fact, in the instant case
H there are findings that several advances and over-drawals allowed by the
314
·l
DISCIPLINARY AlTilfORITYCUM-REGL MANAGER v. N.B. PATNAIK[JEEVANREDDY,J.]
315
respondent beyond his authority have become sticky and irrecoverable. A
Just because, similar acts have fetched some profit they are no less
blameworthy. It i s wrong to characterise them as errors of judgment. It
is not suggested that the respondent being a Class-I officer was not aware
of the limits of his authority or of his powers. lnspite of instructions by
the Regional Officer to stop such practice, the respondent continued to · B
indulge in such acts. The Enquiry Officer has recorded a clear finding that
the respondent did flout the said instructions and has thereby committed
an act of disobedience of lawful orders. Similarly, the respondent did not
submi.t "Control Returns" to the Regional Officer. All this could not be
characterised as error of judgment and not as misconduct as defined by
the Regulations. [320-C-Fj
C
1.2. It is not possible to accede to the request of the respondent for
reducing the punishment having regard to his age (37 years).
[320-H; 321-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7188 of D
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.6.95 of the Orissa High
Court in OJ.C. No. 3275 of 1991.
V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, 0.C. Mathur, and Mrs.
Meera Mathur for the Appellants.
V.A. Mohta and P. Gaur for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Leave granted.
E
F
The respondent was an officer in Scale-1 in the service of the Central
Bank of India. While he was working as the Branch Manager, Pardeep
Branch, he was suspended pending enquiry on November 21, 1988. On
January 16, 1989, ten charges were communicated to him. He denied all of
them: An Enquiry Officer Was appointed who reported, after holding a due G
enquiry, that Charges Nos. 1, 6, 8 and 9 were established fully while
Charges Nos. 2, 3, 5, 7 aud 10 were established parti.ally. Charge No. 4 was
held not es11blished. On the basis of the said report, the appropriate
authority dismissed the respondent from service. The appeal preferred by
the respondent was dismissed whereupon he approached the Orissa High H
316
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A
Court by way of a writ petition. The High Court has allowed the writ
petition holding that the charges held established against the respondent
represent errors of judgment but not "misconduct''. The High Court opined
that though the respondent was guilty of doing many acts beyond his
authority, it was not established that it was done with any ulterior motive
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
or for any extraneous consideration. Since thExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.