Karnataka High Court
State Bank Of Mysore vs K S Vasudeva Tatachar on 28 November, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
WA No. 3286 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT APPEAL NO. 3286 OF 2011 (S-DE)
BETWEEN:
1. STATE BANK OF MYSORE
A BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE STATE BANK
OF INDIA (SUBSIDIARY BANKS'S)
ACT, 1959, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
HEAD OFFICE, BANGALORE -560 009.
...APPELLANT
Digitally
signed by B
A KRISHNA (BY SRI. S V NARASIMHAN., ADVOCATE)
KUMAR
Location: AND:
High Court
of
Karnataka 1. K.S. VASUDEVA TATACHAR
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
S/O LATE K S SINIVAS TATACHA
EARLIER WORKING AS OFICER IN
MIDDLE MANAGEMENT GRADE
SCALE-II, STATE BANK OF MYSORE
PPG SECTION, H.O. BANGALORE
(SINCE DECEASED BY LRS)
1) SMT. SAROJA
MAJOR
W/O LATE K.S. VASUDEVA TATACHAR.
2) SRI YOGAPRASAD
MAJOR
S/O LATE K.S. VASUDEVA TATACHAR
-2-
WA No. 3286 of 2011
3) SMT. VASUMATHI
MAJOR
D/O LATE K.S. VASUDEVA TATACHAR
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.512
BHUVANASHREE, 11TH 'A' CROSS
4TH MAIN, BEL LAYOUT, III BLOCK
VIDYARANYAPURAM
BANGALORE - 560 097.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SMT. ASHWINI RAJAGOPAL, ADV., FOR R-1 (A-C))
WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09/03/2011 OF THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE SO FAR IT RELATES TO WP.NO.38466/2002
PERTAINING TO THE APPELLANT BANK AND DISMISS THE WRIT
PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ALOK
ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal has been filed against an order dated 09.03.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.No.38466/2002, by which the Disciplinary Proceedings initiated against the respondent were quashed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the proceedings could not have been continued beyond the age of superannuation of the respondent. In order to appreciate the grievance of the -3- WA No. 3286 of 2011 respondent few facts need to be mentioned which are stated in the writ petition.
2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are, the respondent joined the service of the M/s State Bank of Mysore (hereinafter referred to as ' the Bank') in the year 1962 as Clerk. The respondent since deceased was placed under suspension by an order dated 13.11.1998 on the ground that the Disciplinary Proceeding is contemplated against him in respect of certain acts of commission and omission ought to have been committed by him while the deceased respondent was working as Manager at MES College, Bengaluru Branch of Bank. The Chief General Manager of the Bank by exercising powers under Regulations 19(2) of the State Bank of Mysore (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations' for short) directed that Disciplinary Proceeding already initiated against the deceased respondent shall continue. The respondent attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.1999.
3. Thereafter, a charge sheet was issued to the deceased respondent on 25.06.1999 and domestic enquiry was held against him in accordance with the Regulations. The -4- WA No. 3286 of 2011 respondent, thereupon submitted representation to the Enquiry report dated 15.02.2002, the Disciplinary Authority by order imposed penalty of dismissal from service. The said order was affirmed in an appeal by the Appellate Authority.
4. The deceased employee, thereafter filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge by common order dated 09.03.2011 passed in W.P.No.38466/2002 inter alia held that, after superannuation of the employee, the departmental proceedings could not have been continued against the deceased employee. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge grossly erred in holding that after superannuation of an employee, Disciplinary Proceedings cannot be held. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CANARA BANK vs. D.R.P. SUNDARAM - (2016) 12 SCC 724. It is however, fairly submitted that power under Regulations 19(2) of the Regulations has been exercised by the Chief General Manager and not the Managing Director. -5- WA No. 3286 of 2011
6. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submitted that the employee has expired during the pendency of the appeal. It is further submitted that order dated 07.05.1999 passed under Regulations 19(2) of the Regulations is per se without jurisdiction as the same was not passed by the competent authority namely the Managing Director. It is further submitted that in the absence of any provision for delegation of the aforesaid power, the same could not have been delegated to Chief General Manager. It is submitted that since the employee has expired, therefore the matter should not be remitted to the authority.
7. We have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties.
8. Factum of death of the employee during the pendency of this appeal has not been disputed. Before proceeding further it is pertinent to take note of Regulations 19(2) of the Regulations, which reads as under:
"(2) In case disciplinary proceedings under the relevant regulations of service has been initiated against an officer before he ceases to be in the Bank's service by the operation of, or by virtue of any of the said regulations or the provisions of these regulations the -6- WA No. 3286 of 2011 disciplinary proceedings may, at the discretion of the Managing Director, be continued and concluded by the authority by which the proceedings were initiated in the manner provided for in the said regulations as if the officer continues to be in service, so however, that he shall be deemed to be in service only for the purpose of the continuance and conclusion of such proceedings.
Explanation:
1. An officer will retire on the last day of the month in which he completes the stipulated service or age of retirement.
2. If an Officer's dated of Birth is the first of a month, he will retire from the service at the close of the last day of the proceeding month in which he completes the stipulated year of service or attains the age of retirement. however, if the date of birth happens to be on or after the second day of the month the officer concerned shall retire from the service at the close of the last day of the month in which he completes his age of retirement."
9. Thus, on perusal of aforesaid Regulations, it is evident that under an order passed by the Managing Director, Disciplinary Proceedings may be continued against an officer after superannuation. Regulations does not contain any provision with regard to delegation of power.
10. It is trite law that when a power is conferred by an authority by a provision, that authority alone has to exercise -7- WA No. 3286 of 2011 that power as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BOMBAY v.
GORDHANDAS BHANJI - AIR 1952 SC 16. In the instant case, admittedly, order under Regulations 19(2) of the Regulations has been passed on 07.05.1999 by the Chief General Manager. In terms of Regulations 19(2) of the Regulations, Chief General Manager has no authority to pass an order under Regulations 19(2) of the Regulations. The aforesaid order is therefore per se without jurisdiction and therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
11. Ordinarily, we would have remitted the matter for consideration to the Managing Director afresh. However, in peculiar facts of the case since the respondent has expired during pendency of this appeal, we refrained from doing so.
12. In view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CANARA BANK (supra), we hold that the Disciplinary Proceedings could have been continued against an employee even after the superannuation. However, this Court in an intra court appeal on the analogy of principles contained in order 41 Rule 33 of CPC has power to make such order which ought to have been make and that power can be exercised -8- WA No. 3286 of 2011 notwithstanding the fact that no appeal has been filed by the parties against such an order.
13. For aforementioned reasons, we agree with the conclusions recorded by the learned Single Judge though for different reasons which have been assigned by us supra.
In view of the preceding analysis, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE NMS