LexUCO BANK & ORS. versus SUSHIL KUMAR SAHA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012) 9 S.C.R. 611 UCO BANK & ORS. v. SUSHIL KUMAR SAHA (Civil Appeal No. 7515 of 2012) OCTOBER 15, 2012 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] SERVICE LAW: A B Disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary authority - Bank c Officer, transferred to Head Office stated to have committed various irregularities during his earlier posting - Disciplinary authority of the erstwhile place of posting nominated to conduct disciplinary proceedings - Held: The disciplinary authority was duly empowered under the relevant provision to D institute the disciplinary proceedings - Court is not expected to sit in judgment over wisdom of the Bank in taking such a decision which is to expedite the disciplinary proceedings - Division Bench of High Court erred in quashing the proceedings. and the punishment of dismissal - Impugned E order set aside - UCO Bank (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1976 - Regulation 5 - Note dated 3.8.2004 - Circular dated 11. 8. 2004. The respondent, while working as the Senior Manager in the scale of MMGS-111, in a Branch of the UCO F Bank from 15.10.2001 to 23.8.2005, was stated to have committed serious irregularities in sanctioning loan and granting indiscriminate excess drawings and overdrawing facilities to various parties beyond his powers and without approval of the Controlling Office. G This was detected subsequently after he was transferred and posted as Senior Chief Officer at the Head Office of the Bank in August 2005. The Bank issued a charge-sheet to the respondent through the AGM (disciplinary 611 H 612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 9 S.C.R. A authority). Ultimately, the AGM found the charges fully proved, and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. The departmental appeal and the writ petition of the respondent were dismissed. However, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed his appeal holding that B the AGM had no jurisdiction to hold the disciplinary proceedings, and directed his reinstatement. In the instfint appeal filed by the Bank, the question for consideration before the Court was: whether the C disciplinary authority of the erstwhile place of posting, where irregularities stated to have occurred/committed, could institute and complete the disciplinary proceedings against the erring officials (both officer and award staff), notwithstanding the fact that such persons are later posted under the administrative jurisdiction of some D other authorities. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, the AGM is justified in E initiating disciplinary proceedings which is in accordance with the decision dated 3.8.2004 as well as the circular dated 11.8.2004. The Note dated 3.8.2004 which was approved by CMD in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Regulation 5(1) of the UCO Bank (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 is statutory in nature. F Regulation 5 specifically provides that the Managing· Director or the Executive Director or any other authority empowered by either of them by general or special order, may institute or direct the disciplinary authority to institute disciplinary proceedings. Further, note 2 to the Schedule G also stipulates that the powers of the specified authorities may be exercised by any other authority nominated by the Executive Director/CMD, who is equal in rank or higher than the authority specified therein. The reason for entrusting the -task of initiating the disciplinary H UCO BANK & ORS. v. SUSHIL KUMAR SAHA 613 proceedings on the disciplinary authority of the erstwhile A place of posting is that the new disciplinary authority might not be aware of the nature and extent of irregularities allegedly committed by the employee in his earlier place of posting, since the relevant records, documents etc. are kept in the old place of posting. The 8 Bank in its wisdom felt that such a course will expedite disposal of the disciplinary cases within the stipulated time frame. This Court is not expected to sit in judgment over wisdom of the Bank in taking such a decision which is to expedite the disciplinary proceedings. [para 18) [625- C G-H; 626-A-D] 1.2 Consequently, the AGM who had the disciplinary control over the respondent while he was working at the Branch Office has got jurisdiction to conduct an enquiry with regard to the irregularities committed by the D respondent while he was working as the Senior Manager at the Branch Office
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.