Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The Secretary of this Commission is requested to take necessary action in the matter.

As directed by the Chairman of 1st respondent-Commission, the Secretary, through the communication impugned in the writ petition, called upon the petitioner-Bank to exonerate the charges, restore pay to M.Raj Kishore and directed payment of salary and allowances for the suspension period, as he was not found guilty by 1st respondent-Commission. Hence, the writ petition.

The petitioner challenges the observations of the Chairman of 1st respondent and also the communication dated 26.03.2009 on the ground that the 1st respondent does not have any power or jurisdiction to entertain a petition filed by 2nd respondent in respect of a grievance relating to service matter of an employee of petitioner Bank and pass the orders impugned in the writ petition. The 1st respondent-Commission does not have jurisdiction to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings even under Article 338 of the Constitution of India or as per the Andhra Pradesh State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2003 (for short, Act 9 of 2003). It is further contended that the Commission is not empowered either by functions, duty or jurisdiction under Act 9 of 2003 to set aside the disciplinary proceedings initiated and concluded under the Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action Procedure for Workmen. Therefore, the directions issued by 1st respondent vide letter dated 26.03.2009 are per se illegal and without jurisdiction. It is further contended that the 1st respondent without properly appreciating either the explanation or the material placed by the petitioner Bank has come to an erroneous conclusion on the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority and, therefore, the proceedings impugned in the writ petition are liable to be set aside.

The Commission after examining numerous petitions presented by the Scheduled Cates and Scheduled Tribes has made certain suggestions and also measures to be taken for eradication of untouchability and prevention of atrocities against Scheduled Cates and Scheduled Tribes and to achieve the goal, it has recommended to constitute an independent Commission some what on the lines of the Andhra Pradesh State Minorities Commission Act, 1998 (A.P. Act 31 of 1998) to perform the duties of the Commission as conferred under clause (5) of Article 338 of the Constitution of India by giving a statutory status under specific Legislation.

In the light of the above discussion what is discerning in the exercise of jurisdiction of 1st respondent is, the 1st respondent being a Commission, by referring to its functions has ushered into the area of adjudication.

By juxtaposing the functions under Section 12 of Act 9 of 2003 within the literal or legal meaning of words jurisdiction or authority, this Court is satisfied to hold that the functions under Section 12 of Act 9 of 2003 can travel that far to confer jurisdiction on petitioner- Bank in the disciplinary matters. Let me further examine the claim of 1st respondent with the illustration viz., that the service or disciplinary rules are for employees as a class, but its applicability is not dependant on whether an employee is OC, OBC, SC or ST. If the logic of 1st respondent is accepted, then against the orders of punishment, fora for redressal change with status of employee. The role and function of 1st respondent is particularly advisory in nature and protect the constitutional rights of SC/ST, prevent practice of untouchability etc. This Court finds it relevant to refer to ALL INDIA INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK SC AND ST EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION v. UNION BANK OF INDIA for the proposition that even under Article 338 of the Constitution of India, the powers of Civil Court for summoning witness etc., can be inferred to have been granted in favour of Commission. The Commission does not have power to grant injunctions, both temporary and permanent. In ALL INDIA INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK SC AND ST EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATIONs case, the Supreme Court held thus:

All the procedural powers of a Civil Court are given to the Commission for the purpose of investigating and inquiring into these matters and that too for that limited purpose only. The powers of a Civil Court of granting injunctions, temporary or permanent, do not inhere in the Commission nor can such a power be inferred or derived from a reading of clause 8 of Article 338 of the Constitution, The Commission having not been specifically granted any power to issue interim injunctions, lacks the authority to issue an order of the type found in the letter dated March 4, 1993.