Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

..........

It classifies delinquencies into three categories, namely,

(i) offences (ii) gross-misconduct and (iii) minor-miscon-

duct and prescribes procedure to deal with each of them. Sub-paragraph (1) to (3) deal with the cases of of- fences. Sub-para (1) defines offence to mean any act involv- ing moral turpitude and for which an employee is liable to conviction and sentence under the provisions of law. Sub- para 2(a) states that when in the opinion of the management, the employee has committed an offence and he is not prose- cuted by the prosecuting agency, the bank may take steps to prosecute him or get him prosecuted. The bank is also empow- ered to suspend the employee in such circumstances. Sub- paragraph 2(b) states that if the employee is convicted in such prosecution, he may either be dismissed or "be given any lesser form of punishment as mentioned in sub-para 5 below". However, if he is acquitted with or without the benefit of doubt, sub-para 2(c) lays down two different procedures to meet the two situations. It states that even if an employee is given a clean acquittal, it is open to the management to proceed against him under the provisions set out in sub-paras (9) and (10) "relating to discharges". It may be mentioned here that the provisions with regard to the discharges in sub-paras (9) and (10) referred to here, are contained only in sub-para 10(c) and they come into play only when the management decides under sub-para (9) to take a disciplinary action and the action is taken after the procedure for the same as laid down in sub-para (10) is followed. But with that, we may deal with a little later. In cases of clean acquittal and a departmental inquiry held thereafter, the management is given yet another option. Instead of the discharge as provided under sub-para 10(c), the management may only terminate the services of the em- ployee with three months' pay and allowances in lieu of notice, if it comes to the decision not to continue the employee in service. In such cases, he shall be deemed to have been on duty during the entire period of suspension, if any, and therefore shall be entitled to the full pay and allowances minus the subsistence allowances he had drawn and also to all other privileges for the period of suspension. Such simple termination of service is not provided for either in sub-para (5) or in sub-para (10). Thus it is obvious from sub-paragraph 2(c) that when a departmental inquiry is held or when disciplinary action is taken in case of a clean acquit- tal. two options are given to the management, namely. (i) to discharge the employee under sub-paragraph 10(c) with or without notice or on payment of only a month's pay and allowances, in lieu of notice but without the benefit of the suspension being converted into a period of duty or (ii) to terminate the services with three months' pay and allow- ances, in lieu of notice and also with the further benefit of converting the period of suspension into a period of duty. However, when the acquittal is with the benefit of doubt and the management does not proceed to discharge the employee under sub-para 10(c) but wants to resort to the second option of the termination of service with three months' pay and allowances in lieu of notice, it is left to the discretion of the management to pay the employee such portion of the pay and allowances for the period of suspen- sion as the management may deem proper, and unless the management so directs, the period of suspension is not to be treated as the period spent on duty. It should, however. be remembered that the course of action open to the management under sub-paragraph 2(c) is in the alternative to and not in negation of the other modes of punishment, namely, to dis- miss etc. the employee. What is, however, necessary to note is the distinction between an action of discharge following the disciplinary proceedings under sub-paras (9) and (10) and that of simple termination of service under sub-para 2(c). The same distinction is also maintained in sub-para 2(d).

tween the discharge under sub-paragraph (10) and simple termination of service in sub-paras 2(c), 2(d) and (3).

8. Sub-para (4) of paragraph 52 1 defines "gross miscon- duct" and sub-para (5) prescribes punishment for "gross misconduct". Sub-para (6) defines "Minor misconduct" and sub-para (7) prescribes punishment for such misconduct. Sub-para (8) then states the manner in which the record is to be kept when action is taken under sub-paras (3), (5) or (7) which deal with the punishment for "gross misconduct" or "minor misconduct" as the case may be.

ings. To make clear. however, that the action, though spawned by the disciplinary proceedings should not prejudice the employee, the last sentence in question has been added by way of an abundant precaution.

11. That this is not a discharge simpliciter or a simple termination of service becomes clear when it is compared both with the provisions of paragraph 522(1), and with those of sub-paras (2)(c), (2)(d) and (3) of paragraph 521 itself. Paragraph 522 as stated earlier is in section IV and is entitled "procedure for termination of employment" as dis- tinct from the title of section III, namely, "procedure for taking disciplinary action" in which paragraph 521 occurs. Paragraph 522 begins by saying "We now proceed to the sub- ject of termination of employment. We give the following directions: .......... "Thereafter in sub-paragraph (1) thereof, it speaks of a simple termination of service of a permanent employee and in sub-paragraph (4), talks of simi- lar discharge simpliciter of employees other than permanent employees. But what is important to note is that the dis- charge simpliciter or simple termination of service which is provided for here, has two distinguishing features. Firstly, it is effected in cases not involving disciplinary action for mis-conduct and secondly, it is to be effected by giving three months' notice or of payment of three months' pay and allowances in lieu of notice, in the case of permanent employees and by giving one month's notice or on payment of one month's pay and allowances, in lieu of notice in case of probationers. There is some apparent conflict in the provi- sions of sub-clause (1) and sub-clause (4) with regard to the period of notice in case of an employee other than a permanent employee. It is, however, immaterial for our purpose. There are yet other conditions imposed by sub-para (6) of paragraph 522 when the termination of the service of the employees is on account of the closing down of the establishment or when retrenchment of more than 5 employees is to be effected. But those conditions again do not oblit- erate the distinction between discharge simpliciter or simple termination of service other than as a result of a disciplinary proceeding, and discharge effected under sub- paras 5(e) and 10(c) as a result of such proceedings. As stated earlier, the termination of employment other than discharge provided for in sub-paras 2(c), 2(d) and 3 of paragraph 521 also requires three months' pay and allow- ances, in lieu of notice as do the provisions of paragraph 522(1). But unlike the provisions of paragraph 522(1) which require three months' notice or payment of three months' pay and allowances only in case of permanent employees and one month's notice or one month's pay and allowances, in lieu of notice in case of employees other than per-

manent employees, the relevant provisions of paragraphs 521(2)(c) and 521(3) require, a notice of three months' or pay and allowances for three months' in lieu of notice, in respect of all employees. Further, what is equally important to note is that whereas para 522(1) and 521(2)(c) and (3) relating to simple termination of service, require the requisite notice to be given or the payment of salary allow- ances in lieu thereof. the provisions of discharge contained in the sub-paras (2)(c) and (3) and (10)(c) of para 521 do not in all cases require notice or pay and allowances, in lieu of notice. The discharge may also be affected under the said provisions without any notice or pay and allowances in lieu of it. Thus the distinction between the discharge contemplated under paragraph 521(10)(c) and discharge sim- pliciter or simple termination of employment under the other provisions is clear enough. This will also show that the two belong to different categories and are not the same. While the former is intended to be punitive. the latter is not. As is further clear from the provisions of paragraphs 521(2)(c). (2)(d) and (3). the discharge contemplated there. as against simple termination. is in proceedings under "sub-paragraphs (9) and (10) infra relating to discharge". In other words. it is as a result of a disciplinary proceed- ing.