LexUCO BANK AND ANR. versus RAJINDER LAL CAPOOR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
--4 >., .... ~ UCO BANK AND ANR. v. RAJINDERLALCAPOOR MAY 18, 2007 [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] Service Law-Disciplinary Proceedings-Initiation of-Under Discipline and appeal Regulations-After Superannuation of the employee- Propriety of-Charge-Sheet issued after date of superannuation-Prior to superannuation only show-cause notices issued-Held : Disciplinary proceedings could not have been initiated under the Regulations after superannuation of the employee-Legal fiction under the provision of the ·regulations could have been invoked only if the proceedings had been initiated while the employee was in service-Departmental proceeding is not initiated merely by issuance of show cause notice-UCO Bank Officer Employees Services Regulations, 1979-/nterpretation of Statutes-Legal Fiction-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 142. Interpretation of Statutes-Legal Fiction-Scope and ambit of-He/fi:· ls confirmed to the object and purport for which the case has been created. A B c D E Charge-skeet was issued against the respondent-employee, after his superannuation in respect of irregularities in disbursing loan. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in terms of Regulation 20(3}(iii} of UCO Bank Officer Employees Services Regulations, 1979. Before his superannuation only show cause notices had been issued in respect of the said irregularities. Disciplinary authority imposed penalty of removal from F service. Appellate authority confirmed the order. Respondent filed Writ Petition challenging framing of charges and the orders of the Disciplinary and appellate authority. Single Judge of High Court though found tJte respondent guilty of irregularities, but found the punishment disproportionate to the gravity of charges. Hence converted the penalty of removal from service G to that of compulsory retirement. Appeal thereagainst was dismissed by Division Bench of High Court. Hence the present appeal Dismissing the appea~ the Court 543 H 544. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 7 S.C.R. A HELD : l. Ordinarily the High Court should not interfere with the quantum of punishment im1>9sed by the Disciplinary Authority. It~ also true that the officers of the bank enjoy a part of confidence and in the event a Manager of a Bank is found to have .embezzled or misappropriated any amount, or exceeded the jurisdiction in the ma,tter of grant of sanction o.f. loan~. the. B Court takes a strict view of the matter~ (ParaJ6) (552-A-B) 2. However, in v.iew of the facts of the case, initiation of departmental proceedin~s itself, was wholly illegal ~nd withoutjurfsdiction. .. (Para 17) [552-C) ·. ·3~· By reason ofRegulation 20(3)(iii) of UCO Bank Officer Empioyees C · Service Regulations, 1979 a legal fiction has been create.:;. Obli~iOus of the legal principle that legal fietion must be given full effect but the scope and ambit of a legal fiction should be confined to the object and purport for which the same_has been created. (Para 19) [552-F) D Dilip S. Dahanukar v. Kotak.Mahindra Co. Ltd and Anr., SCALE 452, · relied. on. . . . . . ·1:,· 4. ·Regulation 20(3)(iii) however, could be invoked only when the Disciplinary proceedings had clearly been initfated prior to the respondent's ceasing to be in service. The terminologies used therein are ofSeminal . : . . . . ~ . . E importance. Only when a disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against an officer of the bankdespite his attaining the age-of superannuation, can the disciplinary proceeding be allowed on the basis of the legal fiction created thereunder, i.e. continue "as if he was in service". Thus, only when a valid departmental proceeding is initiated by reason of the legal fiction raised in terms of the said provision, the deli~quent officer would be deemed to be in F service although he has reached his age of superannuation. The departmental proceeding, it is trite law, is not initiated merely by issuance of a show cause notice. It is initiated only when a charge sheet is issued. (Para 21) (553-B-CJ Union of India etc. etc. v. K. V. Jankiraman,_etc. etc., AIR (1991) SC G 2010 and Coal India Limited and Ors. v. Saroj Ku",,,a;. Mishra, (2007) 5 SCALE H 724, relied oit. ~-t~ Union of India v. Sangram Keshari Nayak, (2007) 6 SCAL¥- 348, referred to. ._ -+ J. - -t UCO BANK v. RAJINDER LAL CAPOOR [S.B. SINHA, J.] 545 5. Respondent, therefore, having been allowed to superannuate, onl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.