UCO BANK & ORS.versusSUSHIL KUMAR SAHA

                     [2012) 9 S.C.R. 611


                     UCO BANK & ORS.                               A
                               v.
                   SUSHIL KUMAR SAHA
              (Civil Appeal No. 7515 of 2012)
                    OCTOBER 15, 2012
                                                                   B
   [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]

    SERVICE LAW:

      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 of the Bank from 15.11.2001 to
23.8.2005. The High Court has taken a narrow view while
interpreting Regulation 1976, the Note dated 3.8.2004,
Circular dated 11.8.2004 read with Regulation 5(1 ).           E
Omitting to note the purpose and object of the note and
the circular, that is, speedy and expeditious disposal of
cases with regard to the disciplinary proceedings against
erring officials, the High Court has committed an error in
quashing the note as well as the circular. [para 19-20]        F
[626-E-F-H; 627-A-B]

    Allahabad Bank v. Prem Narain Pande and Others 1995
(4) Suppl. SCR 481 = 1995 (6) SCC 634 - relied on.

    1.3 In the facts and circumstances of the case, the        G
Division Bench of the High Court has committed an error
in quashing the proceedings initiated by the AGM
(Disciplinary Authority) and the punishment imposed.
Consequently, the judgment of the Division Bench of the
High Court is set aside. [para 21) [627-B-C]                   H
    614       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2012] 9 S.C.R.


A                        Case Law Reference:

          1995 (4) Suppl. SCR 481        relied on      para 8
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    7515 of 2012.
B       From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2011 of High
    Court of Calcutta in APO No. 342 of 2009.
        Vivek Tankha, Santosh Paul, Sameer Sodhi, Arti Singh,
    Pooja Singh, Naveen Kumar for the Appellant.
C       Soumitra G. Chaudhuri, Raja Chatterjee, Runa Bhuyan,
    G.S. Chatterjee for the Respondent.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
          K.5. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted.
       2. The question that is posed for consideration in this case
D is whether the 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
E under the administrative jurisdiction of some other authorities.
       3. The High Court, placing reliance on Regulations 5(1)
  and 6 of the UCO Bank (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations,
  1976 [for short 'Regulations 1976'] read with Schedule thereto,
F took the view that it was only the Deputy General Manager (for
  short 'DGM') who had the power to initiate disciplinary
  proceedings against the respondent and not the Assistant
  General Manager (for short 'AGM'), as per the Schedule to
  Regulations 1976, since at the time of initiation of proceedings
  he was under the jurisdiction of the DGM. The High Court,
G therefore, set aside the entire disciplinary proceedings,
  including the charge-sheet, enquiry report, final order of
  punishment and the appellate order and directed the Bank to
  release all the admissible service benefits and pay admissible
  dues to the respondent. We are, in this case, concerned with
H
    UCO BANK & ORS. v. SUSHIL KUMAR SAHA                  615
           [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
the legality of the order of the High Court.                      A
     4. The Respondent joined the services of the Appellant
UCO Bank (for short 'Bank') as the Field Officer on 11.11.1978.
He was later promoted to the scale of MMGS-111 on 17.7.2001.
Respondent functioned as the Senior Manager in the Bansdroni
Branch of the Bank from 15.10.2001 to 23.8.2005. Respondent B
was later transferred and posted as the Senior Chief Officer
at the Head Office of the Bank situated at Kolkata in August
2005. It was then noticed that while the respondent was working
as the Senior Manager at Bansdroni Branch, he had committed
serious irregularities in sanctioning loan and had granted C
indiscriminate excess drawings and overdrawing facilities to
various parties beyond his powers and without approval from
the Controlling Office. Consequently, a show-cause-notice
dated 23.3.2006 was issued by the Chief Officer, Regionaf
Office, Kolkata. Respondent filed his reply to the said show- D
cause-notice on 17.4.2006. Being dissatisfied with the reply
submitted by the respondent, the Bank issued a charge-sheet
along with Statement of Allegations dated 15.12.2006 through
the AGM (Disciplinary Authority) to hold a domestic enquiry
against the respondent in terms of Regulation 6 of the E
Regulations 1976, levelling 7 charges which are extracted
hereunder for easy reference:
     (i) that the respondent granted indiscriminate excess
     drawings over the sanctioned Cash Credit Limits of
     various parties beyond his delegated power and without       F
     prior approval from Controlling Office;
     (ii) that while granting unauthorized excess drawings, the
     respondent concealed the said fact from the controlling
     office;
                                                                  G
     (iii) that the respondent failed to induce the parties to
     observe credit discipline and indulged in granting them
     unauthorized accommodation detriment to the interest of
     the bank;
                                                                  H
    616       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2012] 9 S.C.R.

A         (iv) that before disbursement of credit facility, respondent
          did not take collateral security in respect of various cash
          credit borrowers violating sanction stipulation rather
          extended the enhanced limit in favour of the borrowers etc.;
          (v) that the respondent did not take steps for creation of
B         valid stipulation in various cases and failed to effectively
          monitor/control and supervise the following advance
          accounts to protect the interest of the bank;
          (vi) that the respondent in blatant violation of the sanctioned
          limits in the case of Mis J.C. Traders released the
c         enhanced amount to the borrower in undue haste and thus
          allowed overdrawing approx. Rs.2 crores to the borrower
          party beyond the amount stipulated for the disbursement
          against the sanctioned enhanced limit;

D         (vii) That the respondent showed inclination to
          accommodate various parties in an irregular and
          unauthorized manner by abusing his official position and
          deliberately displayed indifference to bank's interest and
          exposed the bank to financial loss of Rs.598.07 lacs
          approx. as most of the accounts turned potential NPA/
E         NPA."
       5. Respondent filed his reply to the said charge-sheet on
  17.1.2007. The reply submitted by the respondent was
  considered by AGM in the capacity of the Disciplinary Authority
F and he found the same unsatisfactory and decided to hold a
  departmental enquiry against the respondent and appointed
  Shri Benod Bihari Hazra, Retired Executive of the Bank as an
  Enquiring Authority to enquire into various charges leveled
  against the respondent. Detailed enquiry was conducted and,
G ultimately, the enquiry report dated 12.3.2008 was submitted
  to the AGM.
       6. AGM concurred with the findings of the Enquiring Officer
  in respect of the charges, including Charge No. 4, which the
  AGM found to be fully proved. A copy of the enquiry report was
H served on the respondent, to which he filed a detailed reply.
    UCO BANK & ORS. v. SUSHIL KUMAR SAHA                    617
           [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
AGM, after considering the reply submitted by the respondent,       A
passed final order on 19.4.2008, in exercise of his powers
conferred under Regulation 4 of the Regulations 1976 and
imposed penalty of dismissal from service. Aggrieved by the
said order of AGM, Respondent filed an appeal before the
Appellate Authority, namely DGM, Personnel Services,                B
Department, Head Office. Appellate authority dismissed the
appeal vide its order dated 22.7.2008.
     7. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority,
respondent filed a writ petition No. 1546 of 2008 before the
High Court of Calcutta, which was dismissed by the learned          C
single Judge of the High Court vide its judgment dated
19.11.2009. Appeal was preferred by the respondent to the
Division Bench vide A.P.O. No. 342 of 2009 and the Bench
vide its judgment dated 19.12.2011 allowed the appeal holding
that AGM has no jurisdiction to initiate the disciplinary           D
proceedings. The Division Bench also directed reinstatement
of the respondent into service along with all consequential
benefits, against which this appeal has been preferred by the
Bank.
      8. Shri Vivek Tankha, learned senior counsel appearing for    E
the Appellant-Bank, submitted that the High Court has
committed a grave error in holding that the proceedings initiated
by AGM were without jurisdiction and ordered reinstatement of
the respondent with all consequential benefits. Learned senior
counsel also submitted that the respondent had not challenged       F
the validity of the Circular dated 11.8.2004 or the note dated
3.8.2004 and that the High Court, on a wrong interpretation of
those provisions, took the view that AGM had no jurisdiction to
act as the Disciplinary Authority. In support of his contention,
learned senior counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court       G
in Allahabad Bank v. Prem Narain Pande and Others (1995) 6
sec 634.
      9. Shri Soumitra G. Chaudhuri, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent, submitted that AGM has no jurisdiction to
act as the Disciplinary Authority over the respondent and the       H
    618       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A Division Bench of the High Court has rightly held that the entire
  disciplinary proceedings, starting from the charge-sheet till the
  dismissal of the respondent, was without jurisdiction Learned
  counsel, placing reliance on Regulations 5(1) and 6 of the
  Regulations 1976, contended that the DGM alone could have
B initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent.
  Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the Division Bench
  of the High Court has rightly quashed the entire proceedings
  and ordered reinstatement of the respondent with all
  consequential benefits.
C      10. We are, in this case, concerned only with the question
  whether the disciplinary proceedings were lawfully initiated by
  the AGM and whether power has been conferred on him to act
  as the Disciplinary Authority against the respondent, since the
  irregularities stated to have been committed while he was
D working at Bansdroni Branch of the Bank.
       11. Regulations 1976 was framed by the Board of
  Directors of the UCO Bank, in exercise of its p9wers conferred
  under Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and
  Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (for short 'Act 1970'), in
E consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and the previous
  sanction of the Central Government. Regulation 3(g) of the
  Regulations 1976 reads as under:
          "Disciplinary Authority" means the authority specified in the
          Schedule which is competent to impose on an officer
F         employee any of the penalties specified in regulation 4."
      12. Regulation 4 deals with Minor and Major Penalties.
  Regulation 5 refers to the Authority to initiate disciplinary
  proceedings and impose penalties. Regulation 5 is extracted
G hereunder for easy reference:
               "5. Authority to institute disciplinary proceedings and
          impose penalties:
          (1) The Managing Director or the Executive Director or any
          other authority empowered by either of them by general or
H         special order may institute or direct the Disciplinary
    UCO BANK & ORS. v. SUSHIL KUMAR SAHA                       619
           [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
    Authority to institute disciplinary proceedings against an         A
    officer employee of the bank.
    (2) The Disciplinary Authority may himself institute
    disciplinary proceedings.
    (3) The Disciplinary Authority or any authority higher than
    it, may impose any of the penalties specified in regulation        B
    4 on any officer employee."
    (emphasis added)
Regulations 6(1) and (2) deal with the procedure for imposing
major penalties and they are as follows:
                                                                       c
    "6. Procedure for imposing major penalties:
    ( 1) No order imposing any of the major penalties specified
    in clauses (f), (g), (h), (i) and 0) of regulation 4 shall be
    made except after an inquiry is held in accordance with
    this regulation.                                                   D
    (2) Whenever the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion
    that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any
    imputation of misconduct or misbehavior against an officer
    employee, it may itself enquire imo, or appoint any other
    public servant (hereinafter referred to as the inquiring           E
    authority) to inquire into the truth thereof."
   13. Regulation 18 (unamended) deals with Review and the
same reads as follows:
    "18. Review:
    Notwithstanding anything contained in these regulations,           F
    the Reviewing Authority may call for the record of the case
    within six months of the date of the final order and after
    reviewing the case pass such orders thereon as it may
    deem fit.
                                                                       G
    Provided that -
    (i) If any enhanced penalty, which the Reviewing Authority
    proposes to impose, is a major penalty specified in
    clauses (f), (g), (h), (i) or (j) of regulation 4 and an enquiry
    as provided under regulation 6 has not already been held           H
    620       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A         in the case, the Reviewing Authority shall direct that such
          an enquiry be held in accordance with the provisions of
          regulation 6 and thereafter consi.der the record of the
          enquiry and pass such orders as it may deem proper;
          (ii) If the Reviewing Authority decides to enhance the
B         punishment but an enquiry has already been held in
          accordance with the provisions of regulation 6, the
          Reviewing Authority shall give show cause notice to the
          officer employee as to why the enhanced penalty should
          not be imposed upon him and shall pass an order after
c         taking into account the representation, if any, submitted by
          the officer employee."
         14. The Board of Directors of UCO Bank, in exercise of
    its powers conferred under Section 19 read with sub-section
    (2) of Section 12 of the Act 1970, approved the amendment to
D   Regula.tion 18 and the Schedule to the Regulations 1976, in
    consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and with previous
    sanction of the Central Government, and a circular No. CHO/
    POS/11/2002 dated 4.4.2002 to that effect was issued and
    sent by the Bank to all branches/office, the operative portion of
E   the same reads as follows:
          "In the UCO Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and
          Appeal) Regulatibns, 1976.
          (a) For regulation 18, the following regulation shall be
          substitute? namely:
F         18. Review
          Notwithstanding anything contained in these regulations,
          the Reviewing Authority may at any time within six months
          from the date of the final order, either on his own motion
          or otherwise review the said order, when any new material
G
          or evidence which could not be produced or was not
          available at the time of passing the order under review and
          which was the effect of changing the nature of the case has
          come or has been brought to his notice and pass such
          orders thereon as it may deem fit.
H
     UCO BANK & ORS. v. SUSHIL KUMAR SAHA                     621
            [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
     xxx   )()(){                xxx                                A
     xxx   )()(){                xxx
     The existing schedule, the following schedule shall be
     substituted namely:
a.   Scale/                  Disciplinary Appellate Reviewing
     category                authority    authority authority       B
     of post
     xxx                      xxx          xxx         xxx
b)   Officers in MMG/Scale     Asst. Gen. General      E.D.
     Ill & officers in Grade   Manager      Manager
     B posted at Branches/     attached to                          c
     Offices under jurisdi-    office of
     ction of Regional Offices respective
     headed by Regional        General
     Manager in Senior         Manager
     Management Grade/         (Operations)                         D
     Scale IV/ Grade A
     including officers sent
     on deputation
     xxx                      xxx          xxx         xxx
c    Posted at Head office     Dy. General G.M.        E.D.         E
     or any other office/      Manager     (Pers)
     establishment coming      (Personal)
     under direct control of
     Head Office including
     the regional Rural
     Banks/ Regional Train-                                         F
     ing Centres/Central Staff
     college and officers sent
     on deputation &
     inspecting officers
     xxx                       xxx          xxx       xxx           G


      Note- 1. Where a post of any of the above said authorities
            remains vacant without officiating/ acting
            arrangement having been authorized, the powers
                                                                    H
    622       SUPREME COURT ~EPORTS                  (2012] 9 S.C.R.


A                should be exercised by the next higher authority. 2.
                 The powers of any of the above specified
                 authorities may be exercised by any other authority
                 nominated by the Executive Director/Chairman &
                 Managing Director who is equal in rank to or higher
B                than the authority specified above.
          The amendments to the above regulation and to the
          schedule came into force w.e.f. 9.2.2002."
          15. The Top Management Committee (for short 'TMC') of
C   the Bank convened its 11th Meeting on 26.6.2004 at Bank's
    Head Office at Calcutta and the necessity of expeditious
    disposal of disciplinary cases was discussed in that meeting.,
    though it was not minuted in the proceedings, says the learned
    senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank. Following the
    TMC meeting held on 26.6.2004, an Inter Departmental Note
D   dated 3.8.2004 was placed by the GM (Personnel) of the Bank
    before the Chairman and Managing Director (for short 'CMD')
    referring to the decision taken for expeditious disposal of
    disciplinary cases, the operative portion of the same reads as
    follows:
E
          "NOTE TO CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR
          Sub: Expeditious disposal of disciplinary action cases -
          decision taken in the TMC meeting dated 26.06.2004
          In terms of existing Schedule of Disciplinary Authorities,
F         consequent upon transfer of any employee (both officer
          and Award staff) from one region to another, the
          disciplinary authority changes. As per Head Office Circular
          No. CHO/PMG/4/2002 dated 16.1.2002 with the transfer
          of a charge sheeted- employee (both officer and award
G         staff), the disciplinary authority over him will remain the
          same and the said disciplinary authority would complete
          the RDA cases, irrespective of the fact that the charge
          sheeted employee has been transferred. This order has
          been made effective from 1.2.2002. In terms of the above
H         circular, however, if the irregularity is detected after the
    UCO BANK & ORS. v. SUSHIL KUMAR SAHA                       623
           [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
     transfer of the employee, the disciplinary authority at the       A
     new place of posting will take appropriate action.

     In view of the above, it has been observed that delay
     occurs in the matter of initiating appropriate action including
     disciplinary action against the erring employees. who had         B
     committed irregularities in his earlier place of posting.
     Therefore, the TMC in its meeting held on 26.6.2004
     decided that henceforth the disciplinary authority of
     erstwhile place of posting where the irregularities took
     place. will institute and complete the RDA against the            C
     erring official (both officer and award staffi considering the
     nature and extent of irregularities as the relevant records
     are readily available with them.

     Accordingly, Personnel Department, Head Office
     proposes to issue a Circular which would be made                  D
     effective from 16.8.2004, in compliance with the above
     directives of TMC, a copy of which is enclosed for kind
     perusal and approval."

                                               (emphasis added)
                                                                       E
      16. The note was perused and approved by the CMD of
the Bank on 10.8.2004 in exercise of his powers conferred
under Regulation 5( 1) of the Regulations 1976. On the next day,
i.e. 11.8.2004, the General Manager (Personnel) of the Bank
issued a Circular No. CHO/PMG/22/2004 to all the branches              F
for expeditious disposal of disciplinary cases stating, inter alia,
as follows:

     "As the new disciplinary authority is not naturally aware of
     the nature and extent of irregularities allegedly committed       G
     by the employee in his earlier place of posting and relevant
     records I documents etc. are kept in the old place of
     posting, it was decided vide Bank's Circular No. ·cHO/
     PMG?4/2002 dated 16.1.2002 that with the transfer of a
     charge sheeted employee (both officer I award staff) the          H
    624       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A         disciplinary authority over him would remain the same and
          the said DA would complete the RDA case irrespective
          of the fact that the charge sheeted employees has been
          transferred. The operation of the circular was made
          effective from 1.2.2002. However the provision of this
B         circular was not made applicable for employees, in whose
          cases the irregularities were detected subsequently and
          no appropriate steps for such irregularities which warrant
          timely action including disciplinary action against the erring
          officials, often gets delayed as neither the new disciplinary
c         authority nor the old office/branch from where the employee
          has been transfers, takes proper care to facilitate initiation
          of RDA and expeditious disposal of the same.

          The matter was thoroughly discussed in the Top
          Management Committee in meeting dated 26.6.2004. To
D         obviate delay in initiation of RDA and conclusion of the
          same, due to change of disciplinary authority consequent
          upon transfer of the employee, against whom lapses are
          attributable for his irregular action in earlier place of
          posting, the committee decided that henceforth, in terms
E         of bank's circular No. CHOIPAS/212000 dated 23.6.2000
          for Award staff and CHO!POS/1112002 dated 4.4.2002 for
          officers, the disciplinary authority of erstwhile place of
          posting, where irregularities occurred/committed, will
          institute and complete the RDA against the erring officials
F         (both officer and award staff), considering the nature and
          extent of the irregularities on case to case basis,
          notwithstanding such employees are presently posted
          under the administrative jurisdiction of some other
          authorities. Similarly, the appellate authorities of earlier
G         place of posting of the erring official (both officer and award
          staff) would take steps for disposal of the appeals
          preferred against the final orders passed by such
          disciplinary authorities. This decision has been taken
          keeping in view the position that the earlier disciplinary
          authority/appellate authority is better aware of the facts and
H
    UCO BANK & ORS. v. SUSHIL KUMAR SAHA                        625
           [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
     circumstances of such cases and the relevant documents/            A
     records are readily available in the eariier place of posting.
     We feel that the above revised guidelines will expedite
     disposal of RDA cases within the stipulated time frame of
     four and six months for non vigilance and vigilance cases
     respectively as directed by the DPC.                      B
     The disciplinary authorities/appellate authorities are
     advised to note this changes for strict compliance, which
     would come into operation w.e.f. 16.8.2004. Existing
     cases, where charge sheets I letters of imputations or C
     lapses have already been issued, will however, not be
     affected by the operation of this circular.
     A copy of this circular should be displayed on the notice
     board for the information of all concerned."
                                                (emphasis added)        D
     17. We have already indicated that the respondent was
working as the Senior Manager at Bansdroni Branch of the
Bank from 15.10.2001 to 23.8.2005 and the irregularities were
committed or occurred while he was working at that branch of            E
the Bank and the respondent was later transferred to the Head
Office on August 2005. While he was working at the Head
Office, the Bank came to know of the irregularities committed
by him while he was working at the Branch Office of the Bank
during the above mentioned period. Consequently, disciplinary
proceedings were initiated against him and a charge-sheet               F
dated 15.12.2006 was issued to him by AGM following the
above mentioned circular dated 11 .. 8.2004, which conferred
powers on AGM since the irregularities occurred or committed
when he was functioning at the Branch Office.
                                                                        G
     18. In the instant case, however, AGM is justified in 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                    H
    626       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 9 S.C.R.

A   Regulation 5(1) is statutory in nature. Regulation 5 specifically
    empowers 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
B   schedule also stipulates that the powers of the specified
    authorities may be exercised by any other authority nominated
    by the Executive I CMD, who is equal in rank or higher than
    the authority specified therein. The reasons for entrusting the
    task of initiating the disciplinary proceedings on the disciplinary
C   authority of the erstwhile 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 Bank
    in its wisdom felt that such a course will expedite disposal of
0
    the disciplinary cases within the stipulated time framed. 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.

E        19. 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 e:iquiry with regard to
    the irregularities committed by the respondent while he was
    working as the Senior Manager at the Branch Office of the
F   Bank from 15.11.2001 to 23.8.2005. We may indicate that in
    Allahabad Bank (supra), this Court while interpreting the
    provisions of Regulations 3, 4, 5(1) & (2), 6(3), 21 (ii) and 7(3)
    of the Allahabad Bank (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations,
    1976, held that the High Court has taken too narrow a view of
G   the controversy posed before it and has set aside the dismissal
    on too hyper-technical a view which cannot be sustained on the
    scheme of the Regulations.

          20. We are of the view that, in this case also, the High
    Court has taken a narrow view while interpreting Regulation
H
       UCO BANK & ORS. v. SUSHIL KUMAR SAHA                  627
              (K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
1976, the Note dated 3.8.2004, Circular dated 11.8.2004 read         A
with Regulation 5(1). Omitting to note its purpose and object,
that is speedy and expeditious disposal of cases with regard
to the disciplinary proceedings against erring officials, the High
Court has committed an error in quashing the note as well as
the circular.                                                        B

     21. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of
the view that the Division Bench of the High Court has
committed an error in quashing the proceedings initiated by the
AGM (Disciplinary Authority) and the punishment imposed. C
Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the
Division Bench of the High Court is set aside.

R.P.                                            Appeal allowed.