LexUCO BANK AND OTHERS versus M.B. MOTWANI (DEAD) THR. LRS. & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2023] 16 S.C.R. 525 : 2023 INSC 908 525 CASE DETAILS UCO BANK AND OTHERS v. M.B. MOTWANI (DEAD) THR. LRS. & OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 8516 of 2011) OCTOBER 12, 2023 [HIMA KOHLI AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justiο¬ ed in setting aside the order passed by the appellant-Bank imposing punishment of dismissal upon the respondent no.1-Bank manager. Service Law β United Commercial Bank Oο¬ cerβs Service Regulations, 1979 β Regulation 20(3)(iii) β Termination of service β Disciplinary proceedings, not pending against delinquent employee, on the date of his superannuation β Eο¬ ect β On facts, the Bank manager-employee attained the age of superannuation on 02.07.1991 and was due to retire on 31.07.1991 β On 17.06.1991 was served with a memo requiring him to explain the irregularities and lapses relating to certain accounts during his tenure β Thereafter, on 15.07.1991, the General Manager exercising power u/Regn 12 of the 1976 Regulations, placed him under suspension and the same was upheld by the Appellate Authority and the High Court β Meanwhile, on 07.12.1991, the Bank Manager served with the charge sheet and the departmental enquiry started β On 03.03.1993, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the Bank Manager from service under the 1976 Regulations β Appeal there against rejected by the Appellate Authority β However, the High Court set aside the dismissal order β Correctness: Held: Bank manager-employee attained the age of superannuation on 02.07.1991 and was due to retire on 31.07.1991, whereas the chargesheet was issued to him on 07.12.1991 β Departmental proceeding was not initiated on issuance of a show cause notice but only when the 526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 16 S.C.R. chargesheet was issued β Thus, on the date of his superannuation, no disciplinary proceedings were pending against him β In view therof, the punishment order of dismissal from service set aside β Furthermore, since the employee expired during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant- Bank to pay the service beneο¬ ts due to the employee along with interest @ 7% pa from the date of his retirement till the payment is made, to his legal heirs within the stipulated period β United Commercial Bank Oο¬ cer, Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. [Para 23, 28] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. Punjab National Bank [2007] 7 SCR 585:(2007) 8 SCALE 240 β distinguished. UCO Bank & Anr. v. Rajender Lal Capoor [2007] 7 SCR 543: (2007) 6 SCC 694; Canara Bank v. D.R.P. Sundharam (2016) 12 SCC 724; UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor [2008] 5 SCR 775: (2008) 5 SCC 257; Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalο¬ elds Ltd. v. Rabindranath Choubey (2020) 18 SCC 71; B.K. Srinivasan v. State of Karnataka [1987] 1 SCR 1054: (1987) 1 SCC 658; Rajendra Agricultural University v. Ashok Kumar Prasad [2009] 15 SCR 1168: (2010) 1 SCC 730; United Bank of India Oο¬ cers Association v. United Bank of India 1987 (1) LLJ 104 β referred to. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED ORDER AND APPEARANCES CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.8516 of 2011. From the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2009 of the High Court of Bombay in WP No.15 of 1995. Appearances: Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Sudhir Mishra, Rajesh Singh, Advs. for the Appellants. Aman Mohit Hingorani, Himanshu Yadav, Naseem Ahmed, Advs. for the Respondents. 527 JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT RAJESH BINDAL, J. 1. The challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment1 of the High Court2 passed in A Writ Petition3.Vide the aforesaid judgment,the Division Bench of the High Court had set aside the order dated 03.03.1993,passed by the appellant-Bank, wherein the punishment of dismissal was imposed upon the respondent no.1 and the order dated 23.07.1993, by which the appeal ο¬ led by him was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. FACTS 2. Brieο¬ y the facts, available on record, are that the respondent no.1 was appointed as an Apprentice in the appellant-Bank4 in the year 1952. In the year 1974, he was posted as a Branch Manager at Moradabad Branch. From there, he was transferred to Calcutta Main Branch as an Assistant Manager. In the year 1976, the respondent no.1 was promoted and was transferred to Bombay as Senior Management Scale-IV Oο¬ cer. Between the year 1988-90, he served as an Assistant General Manager at Bombay Main Branch. He attained the age
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.