LexUCO BANK AND ANR. versus RAJINDER LAL CAPOOR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 775 UCO BANK AND ANR. A v. RAJINDER LAL CAPOOR (Review Petition (C) No. 748 of 2007 IN Civil Appeal No. 2739 of 2007) B • ~ MARCH 31, 2008 [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] Service Jaw: c Disciplinary proceedings - Initiation of, after employee reached age of superannuation without drawing up of charge sheet- Held: Not permissible - In terms of 1976 Regulation, drawing up of charge sheet is the first step for initiation of a disciplinary authority - Ordinarily no disciplinary proceedings D can be continued in absence of any statutory rule after employee reaches his age of superannuation - Although employer may resort to preliminary inquiry, but the same has a limited role to play - But, in absence of statutory rules operating in field, resorting to preliminary enquiry would not E by itself be enough to hold that a departmental proceeding has been initiated - UCO Bank (Officers? Service Regulation, 1979 - Regulation 20 - UCO Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 - Regulation 24. Interpretation of statutes: F ·1' Purposive construction - Applicability of - Court to give effect to purport and effect of the statute. Harmonious construction - If two or more provisions of a statute appear to carry different meanings, a construction which G would give effect to all of them should be preferred. Respondent was working with the appellant-Bank. ' -.. Almost immediately prior to his retirement, he was asked to show cause as to why action under the UCO Bank 775 H 776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R. A (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 (for short "the 1979 Regulations") should not be taken against him by notices dated 24.10.1996 and 30.10.1996. Respondent reached his age of superannuation on 30.11.1996. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him immediately B thereafter. A charge sheet, however, was issued only on 13.11.1998. He was dismissed from service upon initiating , '/-. a departmental proceedings. A writ petition filed by him was allowed. Petitioner- Bank filed an appeal upon grant of special leave c thereagainst. One of the questions which arose for consideration before this Court was whether in absence of any chargesheet having been issued, the disciplinary proceedings could be said to have been initiated. D When the said question was raised, the 1979 Regulations were not before us. This Court asked the learned counsel to handover the regulations by the next day. It was not complied with. However, on 18.05.2007 when the judgment was to be delivered, a prayer was E made to defer the pronouncement of the judgment so as to enable the appellants to place the regulations. The said prayer was declined and the judgment was pronounced. It is in the aforementioned factual backdrop, this review petition has been filed. F Dismissing the review petition the Court HELD: 1.1 Sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 20 of the 1979 Regulations, thus, deals with termination of service where the performance of an officer is unsatisfactory or inadequate or where there is a bona fide suspicion about G his integrity or where his retention in the bank's service is prejudicial to interests of the disciplinary procedure. Other Sub-regulations of Regulation 20 provides for the mode and manner in which such termination may be ).- ' effected as also his entitlement to prefer an appeal H thereagainst and other benefits to which he would be UCO BANK AND ANR. v. RAJINDER LAL CAPOOR 777 ---r- otherwise entitled to. Sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 20 A of the 1979 Regulations places an embargo on an official to leave or discontinue his service of the bank without giving a notice in writing. It prescribes a period of notice. Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 20, however, places an embargo on an officer to leave or discontinue or resign B from service without the prior approval in writing of the 'I competent authority and a notice or resignation given by ~ such an officer before or during the disciplinary proceedings shall not take effect unless it is accepted by the competent authority. Clause (ii) of Sub-regulation (3) c of Regulation 20 must be considered from that asp~ct of · the matter. It raises a legal fiction. Such legal fiction has been raised only for the purpose of "this Regulation" and for no other, which would mean Regulation 20(1 ). The final orders which are required to be passed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.