Karnataka High Court
R Y Kamath vs Canara Bank on 16 August, 2018
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NO.41911 OF 2010(S-DE)
BETWEEN:
R.Y.KAMATH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
S/O K.YESHWANTH KAMATH,
EARLIER WORKING AS AN OFFICER IN
MIDDLE MANAGEMENT GRADE SCALE-III,
AT CANARA BANK SINCE RETIRED FROM
SERVICE AND RESIDING AT FLAT NO.205,
ROYAL HEIGHTS, NEAR MANIPAL COUNTY CLUB,
OFFICE:HOSUR ROAD, SINGASANDRA,
BENGALURU - 560 068. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.N.PRASANNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
CANARA BANK
A BODY CONSTITUTED, UNDER THE
BANKING COMPANIES' (ACQUISITION
AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS) ACT, 1970
HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT NO.112,
J.C.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
... RESPONDENT
2
(BY SRI UDAYA SHANKAR RAI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE ENTIRE RECORDS LEADING TO THE ORDER DATED
25.08.2008 AND 22.10.2009. QUASH ORDER DATED
25.8.2008 (UNDER ANNEXURE-Q TO THE WRIT PETITION)
PASSED BY THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY AND ORDER
DATED 22.10.2009 (UNDER ANNEXURE-S TO THE WRIT
PETITION) PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT / BANK TO RESTORE TO THE
PETITIONER LOSS OF RETIRAL BENEFITS DUE TO
IMPOSITION OF PENALTY WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL
BENEFITS INCLUDING FULL SALARY FOR THE PERIOD OF
SUSPENSION, AS IF THE PETITIONER HAD NOT SUFFERED
ANY PENALTY PURSUANT TO THE CHARGE SHEET DATED
4.9.2007.
*****
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The case of the petitioner is that he initially joined the services of the respondent - bank as an apprentice in 3 the year 1968. Thereafter, he received various promotions. While he was working as a Senior Manager at Ashoka Pillar Branch, he was placed under suspension for alleged acts of commission and omission.
2. A show-cause notice was issued. The petitioner replied to the same. Being dissatisfied, an article of charge was issued. An enquiry was conducted and the charges were held proved. He was imposed with a punishment of reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay by three stages for a period of one year. During which, he shall not earn increments of pay and on expiry of the said period, the reduction shall have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay. Aggrieved by the order of punishment, he preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, which was rejected. Hence, this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned orders are bad in law and liable to be set-aside. Primarily, he contends that there is infraction of 4 Rule-6(17) of Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') which reads as follows:
"(17) The Inquiring Authority may, after the officer employee closes his evidence, and shall if the officer employee has not got himself examined, generally question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the officer employee to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him."
He therefore pleads that the same having not been complied with, the impugned order suffers from illegality.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent disputes the said contention. He submits that the said question is no more res-integra. That it has since been answered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SUNIL KUMAR BANERJEE VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL, reported in 1980(3) SCC 304, wherein it is 5 held that the said provisions are directory and not mandatory.
5. On hearing learned counsels, I'am of the considered view that there is no merit in this writ petition.
6. The question of whether Rule-6(17) of the aforesaid Rules is mandatory or directory, has since been answered by the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In fact, following the said judgment Writ Petition No.20549 of 2003, was disposed off by an order dated 19.04.2011. The same was confirmed by the judgment of a Division Bench in W.P.No.4221 of 2001, dated 29.06.2011, by following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
7. Under these circumstances, I'am of the considered view that the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court squarely applies to the contentions advanced herein. Therefore, following the said judgment the writ petition requires to be rejected. No other 6 contentions have been urged. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
Rule discharged.
SD/-
JUDGE JJ