Sri C M Machaiah Since Deceased By His Lrs vs Bank Of Baroda on 8 June, 2011

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri C M Machaiah Since Deceased By His Lrs vs Bank Of Baroda on 8 June, 2011

Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, B.Manohar

PUNISHMENT IS CONCERNED IN n£ReeTi4:$:§3-"ll"3}:e

BANK TO PROCEED AGAINST TH:e:' 

REGULATIONS.   '

THESE: WRIT APPEALS  V' 
HEARD AND RESERVED.,__:'"'Al\lD C_OMlNQ*._l'ON  FOR"

PRONOUNCEMENT _ OF %_egIe.nSMEN*:'S«eijfnrs DAY,
BMANOHAR J., DE'L<ﬁ/:fER}§D§V--TH'E_'FOLLOWING:

 J U1) ME'Né'? 
In all  question of law
is inve-lvedr'§$;itli:;::A:regajfd:Vltd 'intefpretation of Regulation
20(3-)v('ﬁ_i) "ef  Bank of Baroda, Syndicate

Bank as 'well-as Indian... Overseas Bank. Hence, all these

  are  together and disposed of by this

V'  V ec§'rn1jn-a1_9i A 0irde:"--

 'lV'he--V'eja}V:§V}§ellant in W.AlN0.676/2006 and appellant

 in 'WT.§§'.«:Ne.808/2006 are challenging the order dated

 lO3~';'3~2{}06 made in Writ petition N03295/2000 passed

   the learned Single Judge wherein the learned Single

)§;,e«
if



Judge set aside the order of 

l6,' l?-9~2QO7 which was confirmed   

revision. However, the writfhpetitiergp  dismissed 7

insofar as heldirlg ef enquiry arid ::'eportp.e':fAthe" 

Officer. Being aggrieved  sarIi'e.,l_  aippvellant as

well as the Bank ofthesevlapﬂpeals.
3. The facts of the   

The   of responclerm
Bank  thereafter he was
 {rrerked at various places.
 " a Manager at Malleswaram

Branch,  the appellant was kept under

.   on vH'l'CA-ll~l993 for certain irregularities

  him. On 2~3~l994, articles cf charges

has ?_3'eeti""AserVed. O11 20-44994, the appellant

 ..svu_brhit'ted his reply to the articles of charge. In the

'Krrreantime, the appellant attained superannuation and

 " -"he was allowed to retire from service on 3l~l~l995. T he

/V"



Disciplinary Authority being not satisfied with the reply

given by the appellant, proceeded with the 

an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The 

after holding enquiry subrnittederthe  

8~7~l996 holding that the chargeégigiiévéied' 

appellant are proved. 0:1   e.ai(}"'report;'l

after Considering '£he,----rzepr€i?€i1l.2itii§i3eypf  appellant, the
Disciplinary Authoritylilpaeeeiiii' on l7-9«l997
levying _ of  '_:p..f1j:(§jrfi§   eerviee. Being
aggrieved'  .__tl1e:"v.:>'appe1lant preferred an
appeal    The Appellate
Auth'e'rit:y.'_  appeal on 192-1999.

Thereafteér; the appellant filed a revision petition and the

  isvae Apdisifniesedv on 3~1 L 1999. Being aggrieved by

 1 zipassed by the Disciplinary Authority,

Appellatevllknthorityf as well as Revisional Authority, the

 appeilant filed W.P.No.7295/2000 mainly contending

  after attaining the age of superannuation? the

 V. ._..relatienship of appellant and respenc:lent--Banl£ ceased

E 
'/:{§g;"'v'



E l

ﬁe exist. Therefore, the question of imposing the7e_e'n_alt}>

of dismissing the appellant from service dee's"net.__:aris_e.%_

Further, the Enquiry Officer has net_"'giv:ejnilsiﬁffieient.gh-

opportunity to put forth    

subsistence allowance h:js"----.ri0t b'€€f1Vpai_dA'~.:1*lQ19Lgh the'

Horfble Supreme CQlJ.1'TC  \. ;~_e:vi30g1Af:'£:§ec1 in AIR
1999 SC 1416 Clearlé; allowance
should be giVei:i,__to  and sought
for   ll  appellant further
 Judge ought not to
 resp0ndent~Bank to levy
penaltylx"-«in'v   Regulation 48 of Pension

F{egu;gl.atiQns and--s-eught for setting aside the same.

    as  VA:4::v:appeliantABank filed W.A.No.808/2006
 the order passed by the learned Single

 AA rluclgeiinsofar as quashing the order passed by the
 Disciplinary Auiherity, Appellate Authority and

 Revisienal Autherity interalia contending that as per

/3;





E?

regulation 20(3) (iii) (if Bank of Baroda (Qffieers},g--';';3.erviee

Regulations l9'?9 provides for eontin_ti;atiel*i;~ef

disciplinary enquiry even after retirement;'*..E'1irther;the ' 

appellant~Bank passed the:~i"'"0rder onljii'-2§_5§5é'l9S35 if 

informing the delinquent oii'ie_ei--*_: 

Regulation 20(3) of "lSJerVieel
Regulations, 1979'  ll5%'l'2;"l$98, the
enquiry proceedings  the delinquent
officer    the date of
superanr€i,{ia:tien" delinquent officer is
CeaseCllltt)'Vi*;urther, till the enquiry is
 efficer is not entitled for the

payment  rehtirernent benefits. Regulation 48 of

.  Apenlsiéli Regulatiéns has Come inte force in the year

  is not applicable to the ease of the

ap.1aell_antﬁetelinquent officer. However, the learned Single

 Atljaclgte-.S3et aside the erder of dismissal while upholcling the

A' --..Venaui1iries and also reserved liberty to the Bank te levy

 = ..----t)enalty in terms of Regulation 48 at the Pension



 ,2

Regtilatiens which is contrary to law. 'l'h~e_ said

regulation contemplates for withholding or \U£th'd:ifa.§Viing

the pension or part of it. Further, the  
eentended that when the reg:;ilAatienp_ itself the?

Bank ts Continue the diseiplinafgz p'roeeedi_n.gs» evenafteif

retirement, the Bank eanlpass an"e_rder= of dismissal
even after retirernent~~..'and'lnseugiitnhfor setting aside the

$31116.

5.  by the Syndicate
Banle  lorder dated 6422006
Inade in  passed by the learned Single
Judgellwlierein'  Single Judge while allowing

  petitie.n__in_part set aside the impugned order of

' "dismissal imposed on 30-3-1996 and on

H lfpassed by the Disciplinary Authority and

also, thehldrder passed by the Appellate Authority dated

2  l8<;l2-l997 and the matter was remitted to the

ll;Disciplina1*y Authority to pass appropriate order of



interest of the Bank. The delinquent officer submitted

his reply. The Disciplinary Authority being not''

with the explanation offered appointed7an.::l'ehqtt_i;a§;~,pp

officer, The Enquiry Office: "after   b j 

submitted two separate reportsl'stat_ihlg  the 

leveled against the delinqueﬁ~t.p>offieerare   Aftef

considering the repreeentatioe:'gteep b§tlthe"Clelinquent
officer to the enquirgt  Authority
passed the.  penalty of
reducing stages in the timescale
insot";fi1\\\l./i'/A  is concerned. Insofar
as firet. Concerned, by his order dated

3053:]99é"the'Diseipllhary Authority imposed. a penalty

  A0f't:--dliS'£T:issg,l frotfllleerviee though the delinquent officer

  eerviee on 3l-5-1993, The appeal filed by

 d_eliﬁepdent officer was also diermissed by the

 Appellate Authority on l6~l2-1997 by two separate

 Vorders.

/£3;/I
§_ »



"Z. Being aggrieved by the same, the delinquent

officer filed W.PlNc.423/2000 contendingpV...fli';§\§:".--lf:';;fter

superannuating from service, the ree_p"cndelnt--4B2ir1l<__ 

cannot pass the order of disn}1issallfro::n': 4ret_rceppectiVe

effect. As per Regulation  of l5ene'i--3n 

only penalty that can belllliinfpoeedlllie  of
pensionary benefits I paeeed by the
Disciplinary Authority. In the writ
petition,  filed objections
contending.  20(3)(iii) of Syndicate
Bank'-l_(O.fficers7}:».éerj7icle'.~--.Regulations provides that the
Officer l  disciplinary proceedings has

been linitiatedwlill be ceased to be in service on the date

f ofejupeifanfnnation. But, the disciplinary proceeding will

'cont'ini1c."_e.sl'f;f he was in service till the proceedings are

cenclniziedlland final order is passed in respect thereof.

  ;l'h'e._concerned officer will not receive any pay or other
ellcwances. T he Regulations of the Bank has statutory

force. Hence, the Bank has get power to continue the

/§,./



ax;

E8

for passing necessary orders and sought 

aside the same.

9. W.A.No.169/2006 and w,tAiNo.'3'94a;!e2e'e5g' 
filed by the Indian Overseas  

the said Bank, being aggfieyed dby  dated-it

24492005 in w.p.ai\ia.22p9.oV€§z.199ge tp'as'sec1_7 by the
learned Single Judged  is filed by the
Chief Managet of  'Bank interalia
contending'    ' o. 22900 / 1998
ehaileiigihgﬁgvythdea   by the Disciplinary
Authoifityas  Appellate Authority. He has

eonte_nded"f.r.h'at.   the services of the respondent-

the year""'i'967 and thereafter he was promoted 2_s_'f:yi1:1e he was Working as Chief Manager, eeas Bank, Jayanagar 5??" Block Branch, he was " viéept under suspension on 7>iO~i995 in eoﬁtgempiation of disciplinary enquiry. On 30~iO~i995 to ,t_..articie of Charges wag issued and it was served on him an /9"

§/

26) the Disciplinary Authority as well as iéipipeilate Authority, the appellant filed a writ learned Single Judge after considering' "

detail upheld the enquiry rep.ori[_"siiloiriitied Enquiry Officer, however, iheliearnedi il__udge*';held"Vd' that the petitioner. hadVAy...re'ii.re'dp' frorn-._yservice on 31-104995 hence the order of dismissal froniip' Accordingly, Without by the Enquiry Officer," by the Disciplinary Appellate Authority and reserved li'oertyi'o i:iiie"Bnank to pass necessary order as Indian €)yerseas Bank (Employees) Pension _ Regu.la*tions,..i\ 1:95.

'aggrieved by the order dated 24«8~2005 'passeéiw by the learned Single Judge in V."V'.AA\7£.._li{.No.122900,'W98, the petitioner preferred this appeal.

, *3"

"E?

x..r.r-

MYSORE, HEAD OFFICE, BANGALORE AND N and AIR 1999 se 1418 (cAP'r.M.PAUL BHARAT GOLD MINES LTl).,';:'Al':\ll3 ; learned counsel for the appellant..ecntenVded.:'that:'; pensionary benefits has net gi&7en"tD:the appellant. The starving workmarllllifgannoty . in properly. T he learned Single all these aspects Di? it enquiry report Further, articles of charge just few days prior to the retiremerii, dd After Vretirejment, no departmental enquiry V. xv;_:1s:.prieeeveded"with and passed the order dismissing the service with retrospective effect even thenghé retired and sought for setting aside the ordervpassed by the learned Single Judge. H13. The Indian Overseas Bank in their appeal eentended that Regulation 20(3){iii) of I08 {Qffieers') Service Regualtions 1979 provides for continuation ef '71 disciplinary preeeedings even after retirernent to"

pass the order of dismissal. fl statutery force, hence, learf1e.<:l Single" ..Iuagé net to have quashed the order byithellﬁisleiplinary Authority and soughi same and to dismiss the writ'p_etiti:on'filedv officer.

14. sand'--.._Sri.P.S.Rajgopal learned Senior"-._C'o4ur;sel'ffarg1red: behalf of the delinquent officers arid Sri.}:§..Kasat-uri Senicr Counsel, Pradeep S. Sa;§§l:aEriAV:a:1_d N:S.'Prasad argued on behalf of the Bank of dieate Bank and Indian Overseas Bank.

15. "Sri.S.P.Shankar, learned Senior Counsel V.':V'.A'ap_;aearing for the appellant in W.A.NO.676/2006 = ...--eontended that the learned Single Judge has net taken into consideration the fact that an exparte enquiry was eendue/ted and the appellant was denied an oppertunity to effectively defend himself and the enquiry report has xi/'ire kg /4 E '+ been submitted in violation of principles of natural justice. Further? there eannot be dismissai,V.of_r'ihe employee who had already retired from _ attaining superannuation' In the prese'rii.:'_ease,'--ihe "we order of dismissal has been lpassedil long _"aft§:j;=si,/i.gtiie' appellant attaining supeiaririuatio-n_. no-f relationship of employee and;."g'veIr}plo3./her'--het}.z&;een the appellant and the retirement. Hence, the question:pee-f;:ia1po§sing' disniissal does not arise. _ léension Regulations or"""W--i'ﬁhdraWal of pension or part {hereof or for a specified period as ipenaltyi-.iiAi1leV'found to be guilty and sought for alio§vii1'g the aﬁpea1*,'l by setting aside the order passed Authority and also the order passed Single Judge with regard to dismissal of xthe pevi.ii;ion insofar as enquiry report is concerned. 53*"

1999 se 1416 {CAP'l'.M.PAUL ANTHONY GOLD MINES) to contend that thepppensiori» ~.. to keep the body and soul together ef the same resulted in the eiiquiry contended that non--pa§z'Inen_t_uiof__snbsiste«nee allowance is an inhuman act.

17. 'eoin_'teVn»ded that the entire proeeedi'iigsV"tnitia:.t'ed'-.hy_V'the"~Bank is vitiated for lack of jurisdiction If the Officer is no longer in servioelor re,tired~.fron'i service, he does not fall within tl"1i€'l':":'p?tll'Vlv(3:W definition "Officer-Employee" and 'qj,1est,ieni 5_ll\giO1{iHg regulation 4 of the Indian Overseas Vﬁniiployees' Discipline and Appeal Regulations, A1976 does not arise. He further argued that no penalty 'e»mild be imposed against a retired employee under V» glithese regulations. Further contended that sub~eianse [iii] of Regulation 20[3) provides for Continuation of disciplinary proceedings even after retirement of an /to 3 30 sought for setting aside the order passed by Single Judge insofar as remitting thegirnatterli * Disciplinary Authority to ~:' dismissing the Writ petition _insofar as engqniry rep'orttis--..p Concerned.

18. Sri.K.Kasturi, appearing for the app.e4l,lanltli%_l§%aIi}t':g. A §::r5t:i¢i§N;;,a;is948/2005 and contended that the de1intjne'nt 'tyorliing as a Senior Manager committed omis_sio_f1vi..iand Commission and advanced cﬁritrary' tovthe' regulations framed by the Bank. In "'vie'w ..that--, he was placed under suspension on and articles of charge has been served on 30~lQ}'3i995 prior to the date of attaining Q' "s1,1perannuation. There is no bar under law for amendment of articles of charge during the Course of enquiry. In the present case, disciplinary enquiry has been initiated prior to his retirement as per iOB Officers' /$4./'"' and punishment has been imposed invokingf'Regi;-i.atiQ_n« _ 4(1) of Offieerflmployees DVi»seipline""'an~d:

Regulations.

l9. Regulation 20(.3)(iii] that the delinquent officer not any pay or allowances the payment of are Completed and is':i)Vassled"~tl*iereon, except his own contribution Pension Regulations carne into» force',vé;-e'.f;~--"llV29~9~1995. This Regulation is reeoiferiiigpeeuniary loss caused to the Bank. Clearly demonstrate that the Competent consult the Board of Directors before the AA final vorder is passed for withholding or for reduction of

--..V"'p.e'nsionary benefit and Regulation 48 is not applicable sto the present ease. He also relied upon the judgments reported in U980) 3 SCC 304(SUNiL KUMAR BANERJEE V/s STATE) QF WEST BENGAL AND 34 that the order passed by the learned insofar as setting aside the order~of_ _pen'alt§%" if"

the Disciplinary Authority and against the respondent«deliniefu_ent noffaieer is to'- V law and also the directiong,issue'dlli:iy. thellearned Single Judge to pass in terms of Regulation also liable to be set asidei' -the Charge sheet has an'd""2tS~5~l993 and he retired from The Disciplinary Authority after..eonsideri1ig thelfenquiry report submitted by the Qffieerlijlalslsed two different orders; one is for if hlifnvrthe basic pay by two stages in the time scale of and another order invoking regulation 3[l] .. read with Regulation 24 of the Syndicate Bank Officeru ""._lE;inployees' (Conduct) Regulations 1976, Sri.C.B.L. "Ballal (respondent herein) was dismissed from the service W.e.f.3l~5-i993. In View of regulation 20(3)(iii), the respondent is not entitled for any retirement benefit gt, .4 imposition of penalty of dismissal is eontrarﬂ' directed to pass fresh orders .nn<:i.er 'Pension Regulations 48 which Horfble Supreme SHARK/IA's Case interprete'Cl regiilgttion' 'V2O{'3><)(iii) and held that "Regulationl'4;8"en1pio>;1>Er:é,i'ﬂLe' Bank to recover pecuniary loss:e2_iuse~ii to frorn.j_'the':}f)ensionary benefit. Regulation llilgiseipline and Appeal conjunction with the Pension the employee or the pension optees,....'«Regnl'éition 48(1) shall apply in any ' eVe«nt,5»--."1f an officer" is removed or dismissed from the Regulation 4 of the (Discipline and Appeal} Regnlation, the Bank need not take recourse of Regulation 48 of Pension Regulations as Regulation 22 it 'thereof would be attracted. In View of the authoritative

-giironouneement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and sought for setting aside the same. 7?

N 3' 4} officer retires from service on attaining sn.p_ei:*annuation,--«.. the Disciplinary Authority can or4der~..,r,_"lo«nl:;' under Regulation 48 of: Regulations invoking Regulation 4(1) Appeal) Regulations is to _aggrieved by the said order, theA.Banks.V.as_yVehlll officers have filed. that the enquiry conducted not in accordance with -in with the enquiry, subsistence pension has not been giveiiillv Bank has no power to initiate .Adis--ciplina.ryCenquiry against the retired employees. The Ahulthority passed the order on the direction g of Cleritralhllfigilance Commission without application of 'l'he contention raised by the delinquent officers ' eonsidered by the learned Single Judge holding that there is no irregularity and illegality in the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer: upheld the enquiry ii ,/%,i//8i' /' re / 43 appointed Nﬁrishnamurthy, as Enquiry conducted the enquiry between 214:3» 1996. Sufficient opportunity delinquent officer to defen.d.4himeel_ll'aind the procedure, the Enquiry sulljinilttlecl report. We found that there ilrreVgn,il'aritf'~o_r infirmity in the procedure adopted. Judge also examined _Tcletail;-- anlclllelismissed the writ petitioner V fullyll order of the learned Single--,_Ju_dgeli'neofar_aeiiehallenging the enquiry report is Concerned " V of the latest judgment of Hon'ble Supreme l.Col11::t lllr{:Tpor:::te';§i in 2007 AIR sew 4136 (RAMESH CH2li:\H:'sR;A SiiARMA v/s PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND the Horrble Supreme Court examined Regulation 20(3}(iii) and held that "Regulation 20[3)(iii) of Regulation eiearly envisages eontinuation of the disciplinary proceedings despite the Officer ceased to he 43*) employees even though "they attain superannuation. In View of our finiiiiiggrathe 'ercierii. passed by the learned Single Jadge;-'in?snfar'~as the penalty imposed agairisi V'cie1intpiei'it.V.Hofficersi"

cannot be sustained: feiiowing order: . i V . V w.A_i€e iyﬂivo. 169/2006 are dismiVs.sed_.':"'~.iii/:§i:'i\I_oi-Siﬁséviiiti-eiﬁiw:W.A.No.2O62/2006 and The order passed by the learrieri , Sri1J.'g'1AQV»' chidge insofar as quashing the pf Ve:a1isrri.i.ssa1 imposed by the Disciplinary ' aiid directing the Disciplinary Autherities to erder under Regulation 48 of the Pension Regulations is set asie.

.a"*"'A;

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

Sri C M Machaiah Since Deceased By His Lrs vs Bank Of Baroda on 8 June, 2011

Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, B.Manohar