CANARA BANK AND ORS.versusKAMESHWAR SINGH

36                       [2020]
              SUPREME COURT     1 S.C.R. 36
                             REPORTS                      [2020] 1 S.C.R.


A                      CANARA BANK AND ORS.
                                      v.
                           KAMESHWAR SINGH
                      (Civil Appeal Nos. 66-67 of 2020)
B                           JANUARY 08, 2020
          [S. ABDUL NAZEER AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
            Canara Bank Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal)
     Regulations, 1976 – Regulations 4(h), 5(3) – Respondent was
     working as Scale I officer with the appellant-bank – Put under
C
     suspension for misconduct by the Deputy General Manager of the
     Bank – Order passed inflicting the punishment of compulsory
     retirement – Respondent’s appeal dismissed by the Appellate
     Authority – Challenged by the respondent before the High Court –
     Meanwhile, review of the respondent also rejected – Single Judge
D    remitted the matter to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration
     concluding that the General Manager of the Bank was justified in
     passing the order in view of Regulation 5(3) – Division Bench set
     aside the order on the ground that the General Manager being an
     authority higher to Disciplinary Authority cannot exercise the power
     of the Disciplinary Authority and remitted the matter to the Deputy
E
     General Manager – On appeal, held: It is clear from the Regulation
     5(3) that the Disciplinary Authority or any other authority higher
     than it, may impose any penalties specified in Regulation 4 on any
     officer employee – In the instant case, the departmental proceedings
     against the respondent were initiated by the Deputy General
F    Manager being the Disciplinary Authority – But the order of
     punishment was passed by the General Manager, who was higher
     than the Disciplinary Authority – Having regard to Regulation 5(3),
     Division Bench not justified in holding that General manager has
     no authority to pass the order of punishment – Order of the Division
     Bench set aside and that of the Single Judge, restored.
G
           Allowing the appeals, the Court
           HELD : 1. It is clear from the Regulation 5(3), Canara Bank
     Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976
     that the Disciplinary Authority or any other authority higher than
H
                                     36
      CANARA BANK AND ORS. v. KAMESHWAR SINGH                                 37


it, may impose any penalties specified in Regulation 4 on any                 A
officer employee. In the instant case, the departmental
proceedings against the respondent were initiated by the Deputy
General Manager being the Disciplinary Authority. But the order
of punishment has been passed by the General Manager, who
was higher than the Disciplinary Authority. Having regard to
                                                                              B
Regulation 5(3), the Division Bench was not justified in holding
that General manager has no authority to pass the order of
punishment. The order of the Division Bench is set aside and
the order of the Single Judge remitting the matter to the
authorised Appellate Authority for reconsideration of the appeal
is restored. [Paras 13, 14] [40-E-G]                                          C
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 66-67
of 2020.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Patna in LPA Nos. 1430 of 2013 and 849 of 2013.
                                                                              D
     Rajesh Kumar-I, Anant Gautam, Ms. Sakshi Gaur, Sorabh Dahiya,
Vibhu Sharma, Anmol Mehta, Adv. for the Appellants.
      Gaurav Agrawal, Advs. for the Respondent.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                              E
      S. ABDUL NAZEER, J. 1. Leave granted.
      2. Canara Bank and its functionaries have filed these appeals
challenging the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of
Judicature at Patna in LPA Nos. 1430 of 2013 and 849 of 2013, dated
14.07.2017, whereby the order of punishment passed against the
                                                                              F
respondent by the Appellate Authority, namely, the General Manager of
the Bank, was quashed and the matter was remitted to the Disciplinary
Authority, namely, the Deputy General Manager to proceed with the
inquiry from the stage of receipt of the inquiry report and to conclude the
proceedings in accordance with law.
       3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are     G
that the respondent was appointed on the post of Clerk with the Appellant-
Bank in the year 1978 and was subsequently granted promotion under
the relevant rules of the bank. On 08.08.2008 the respondent was posted
and working as Scale I officer of the bank at its Swarajpuri, Gaya Branch.
He was put under suspension with effect from 20.09.2008 in view of the        H
38            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 1 S.C.R.


A    order passed by the Deputy General Manager of the Bank in
     contemplation of a departmental proceedings. The respondent was served
     with a chargesheet dated 14.02.2009 containing articles of charges and
     statement of imputations to articles of charges. The respondent submitted
     his explanation on 10.03.2009 denying the allegation of misconduct and
     praying therein that the proceeding initiated against him may be dropped
B
     and order of suspension passed against him may be recalled.
           4. However, the Bank not being satisfied with the explanation
     furnished by the respondent, decided to proceed with the departmental
     proceeding initiated against him. One Shri L.N. Jha, the Senior Manager
     of the Bank was appointed as Inquiring Authority and one Shri S.K.
C    Sinha, the Manager of the Bank was appointed as the Presenting Officer.
     A preliminary inquiry was held on 28.04.2009. Regular inquiry was
     commenced w.e.f. 18.05.2009. The respondent nominated one Shri B.K.
     Sinha as defence representative to participate in the departmental inquiry.
     He participated in the said inquiry and presented the defence of the
D    respondent.
           5. In the departmental inquiry, four persons were examined as
     management witnesses. One Deepak Kumar Singh was examined as
     defence witness. Apart from the oral testimonies of the witnesses, some
     material documents were also produced from both sides, which were
E    marked as management exhibits and defence exhibits respectively.
            6. On the basis of the materials on record, the Inquiring Officer
     submitted his report dated 02.07.2009 holding the respondent guilty of
     the charges. A copy of the inquiry report was forwarded to the respondent
     by letter dated 03.07.2009 issued under the signature of the Deputy
F    General Manager and Disciplinary Authority. The respondent was called
     upon to file his representation or submissions on the findings arrived at
     by the Inquiring Authority. Accordingly, the respondent submitted his
     representation/submissions. Thereafter, an order dated 18.8.2009 was
     passed by the General Manager and Disciplinary Authority, whereby
     the punishment of compulsory retirement was inflicted upon the respondent
G    in terms of Regulation 4(h) of the Canara Bank Officers and Employees
     (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (for short ‘Discipline and
     Appeal Regulations, 1976’). The appeal preferred by the respondent
     was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 22.03.2010.
           7. The respondent challenged the said order by filing a writ petition
H    before the High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10295 of 2010.
      CANARA BANK AND ORS. v. KAMESHWAR SINGH                                  39
                [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

During the pendency of this writ petition, review application filed by the     A
respondent was also rejected by the Chairman-cum-Reviewing Authority
by order dated 30.07.2010. The Interlocutory Application filed by the
respondent seeking amendment of the writ petition in order to assail the
validity and correctness of the order passed by the Reviewing Authority
was allowed by the High Court.
                                                                               B
       8. Learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the General
Manager of the Bank was justified in passing the order in view of
Regulation 5(3) of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976. However,
the learned Single Judge found that neither the Appellate Authority nor
the Reviewing Authority have answered the grounds taken on behalf of
the respondent in his appeal and review petition respectively. Therefore,      C
the learned Single Judge remitted the matter, at the first instance, to the
Appellate Authority for reconsideration of the matter as under:
      “For the reasons recorded above, the matter requires
      reconsideration by the specified and authorized Appellate Authority
      as also the Reviewing Authority. They are under legal obligations        D
      to decide all the issues raised and grounds taken on behalf of the
      petitioner in his memo of appeal as also in review petition, which
      has not been done in the present case. Since the matter is being
      remitted to the appellate authority, at the first instance, therefore,
      this Court is not inclined to decide other issues raised on behalf of    E
      the parties, which have been noted in the preceding paragraphs.”
        9. The Bank has challenged this order in LPA No. 1430 of 2013
before the Division Bench. The respondent has also challenged the order
of the learned Single Judge in LPA No. 849 of 2013. The Division Bench
after considering the rival contentions of the parties, has set aside the      F
order of the learned Single Judge and remitted the matter to the Deputy
General Manager to proceed with the inquiry from the stage of receipt
of the inquiry report and thereafter to conclude the proceeding in
accordance with law.
      10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.                       G
      11. The Division Bench has interfered with the order of the learned
Single Judge on the ground that the General Manager being an authority
higher to Disciplinary Authority cannot exercise the power of the
Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, the Division Bench quashed the order
of punishment and remitted the matter to the Disciplinary Authority,
                                                                               H
40             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 1 S.C.R.


A    namely, the Deputy General Manager for fresh consideration in
     accordance with law.
           12. Regulation 5 of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976,
     provides for the authority to institute disciplinary proceedings and impose
     penalties, which is reproduced below:
B          “5 Authority to institute disciplinary proceedings and impose
              penalties:
               (1)   The Managing Director or any other authority
                     empowered by him or by general or special order may
                     institute or direct the Disciplinary Authority to institute
C                    disciplinary proceedings against an officer employee of
                     the bank.
               (2)   The Disciplinary Authority may himself institute
                     disciplinary proceedings.

D              (3)   The Disciplinary Authority or any other authority higher
                     than it, may impose any of the penalties specified in
                     regulation 4 on any officer employee.”
                                                         (Emphasis supplied)
             13. It is clear from the aforesaid Regulation 5(3) that the
E    Disciplinary Authority or any other authority higher than it, may impose
     any penalties specified in Regulation 4 on any officer employee. In the
     instant case, the departmental proceedings against the respondent were
     initiated by the Deputy General Manager being the Disciplinary Authority.
     But the order of punishment has been passed by the General Manager,
     who was higher than the Disciplinary Authority. Having regard to
F
     Regulation 5(3), the Division Bench was not justified in holding that
     General manager has no authority to pass the order of punishment.
           14. In the result, the appeals succeed and are accordingly allowed.
     The order of the Division Bench impugned herein is set aside and the
     order of the learned Single Judge remitting the matter to the authorised
G    Appellate Authority for reconsideration of the appeal is restored.
           15. Parties to bear their respective costs.


     Divya Pandey                                                 Appeals allowed.

H