1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  66­67   OF  2020 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 36477­36478 of 2017)  

CANARA BANK AND ORS.        … APPELLANTS  

VERSUS

KAMESHWAR SINGH     … RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Canara Bank and  its  functionaries have  filed  these appeals

challenging the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of

Judicature at Patna in LPA Nos. 1430 of 2013 and 849 of 2013,

2

dated 14.07.2017, whereby the order of punishment passed against

the respondent  by the  Appellate  Authority,  namely, the  General

Manager of the Bank, was quashed and the matter was remitted to

the Disciplinary Authority, namely, the Deputy General Manager to

proceed with the  inquiry from the stage of  receipt of  the  inquiry

report and to conclude the proceedings in accordance with law.    

3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are

that the respondent was appointed on the post of Clerk with the

Appellant­Bank  in  the  year  1978 and was  subsequently  granted

promotion under the relevant rules of the bank.  On 08.08.2008 the

respondent was posted and working as Scale I officer of the bank at

its Swarajpuri, Gaya Branch. He was put under suspension with

effect from 20.09.2008 in view of the order passed by the Deputy

General Manager of the Bank in contemplation of a departmental

proceedings.  The respondent was served with a chargesheet dated

14.02.2009 containing articles of charges and statement of

imputations to articles of charges.   The respondent submitted his

explanation on 10.03.2009 denying the  allegation  of  misconduct

and praying therein that the proceeding initiated against him may

3

be dropped and order of suspension passed against him may be

recalled.  

4. However, the Bank not  being satisfied with  the explanation

furnished by the respondent, decided to proceed with the

departmental proceeding initiated against him. One Shri L.N. Jha,

the Senior Manager of the Bank was appointed as Inquiring

Authority and one Shri S.K. Sinha, the Manager of the Bank was

appointed as the Presenting Officer.  A preliminary inquiry was held

on 28.04.2009.  Regular inquiry was commenced w.e.f. 18.05.2009.

The respondent nominated one Shri B.K. Sinha as defence

representative to participate in the departmental inquiry.   He

participated in the said inquiry and presented the defence of the

respondent.

5. In the departmental inquiry, four persons were examined as

management witnesses. One Deepak Kumar Singh was examined

as defence witness. Apart from the oral testimonies of the

witnesses, some material documents were also produced from both

sides,  which  were  marked  as  management exhibits  and  defence

exhibits respectively.   

4

6. On the basis of the materials on record, the Inquiring Officer

submitted his report dated 02.07.2009 holding the respondent

guilty of the charges. A copy of the inquiry report was forwarded to

the respondent by letter dated 03.07.2009 issued under the

signature of the Deputy General Manager and Disciplinary

Authority.   The respondent was called upon to file his

representation or  submissions  on the findings  arrived  at  by the

Inquiring Authority. Accordingly, the respondent submitted his

representation/submissions. Thereafter, an order dated 18.8.2009

was  passed by the  General  Manager  and Disciplinary  Authority,

whereby the punishment of compulsory retirement  was inflicted

upon  the respondent in terms  of  Regulation  4(h) of the  Canara

Bank Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations,

1976 (for short ‘Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976’). The

appeal preferred by the respondent was dismissed by the Appellate

Authority on 22.03.2010.  

7. The respondent challenged the said order by filing a writ

petition before the High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.

10295 of 2010. During the pendency of this writ petition, review

5

application filed by the respondent was also rejected by the

Chairman­cum­Reviewing Authority by order dated 30.07.2010.

The Interlocutory Application filed by the respondent seeking

amendment of the writ petition in order to assail the validity and

correctness  of the  order  passed  by the  Reviewing  Authority  was

allowed by the High Court.

8. Learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the General

Manager of the Bank was justified in passing the order in view of

Regulation  5(3) of the  Discipline and  Appeal  Regulations, 1976.

However, the learned Single Judge found that neither the Appellate

Authority nor the Reviewing Authority have answered the grounds

taken on behalf of the respondent in his appeal and review petition

respectively.   Therefore, the learned Single Judge remitted the

matter, at the first instance, to the Appellate Authority for

reconsideration of the matter as under:

“For the reasons recorded above, the matter requires reconsideration by the specified and authorized Appellate Authority as also the Reviewing Authority.  They are  under legal obligations to decide all the issues raised and grounds taken on behalf of the petitioner in his memo of appeal as also in review petition, which has not been done in the present case.

6

Since the matter is being remitted to the appellate authority, at the first instance, therefore, this Court is not inclined to decide other issues raised on behalf of the parties, which have been noted in the preceding paragraphs.”

9. The Bank has challenged this order in LPA No. 1430 of 2013

before the Division Bench. The respondent has also challenged the

order  of the learned Single  Judge  in  LPA No.  849 of  2013.  The

Division Bench after considering the rival contentions of the parties,

has set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and remitted the

matter to the Deputy General Manager to proceed with the inquiry

from the  stage  of receipt  of the inquiry report  and  thereafter to

conclude the proceeding in accordance with law.

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

11. The Division Bench has interfered with the order of the

learned Single Judge on the ground that the General Manager being

an authority higher to Disciplinary Authority cannot exercise the

power of the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, the Division Bench

quashed the order of punishment and remitted the matter to the

7

Disciplinary  Authority,  namely, the  Deputy  General  Manager for

fresh consideration in accordance with law.  

12. Regulation 5 of the  Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976,

provides for the authority to institute disciplinary proceedings and

impose penalties, which is reproduced below:

“5 Authority to institute disciplinary proceedings and impose penalties:

(1) The Managing Director or any other authority empowered by him or by general or special order may institute or direct the Disciplinary Authority to institute disciplinary proceedings against an officer employee of the bank.

(2) The Disciplinary Authority may himself institute disciplinary proceedings.

(3) The Disciplinary Authority or any other authority higher than it, may impose any of the penalties specified in regulation 4 on any officer employee.”                  (Emphasis supplied)

13. It is clear from the aforesaid Regulation 5(3) that the

Disciplinary Authority or any other authority higher than it, may

impose any penalties specified in Regulation 4 on any officer

employee.   In the instant case, the departmental proceedings

against the respondent were initiated by the Deputy General

8

Manager being the Disciplinary Authority. But the order of

punishment has been passed by  the General  Manager,  who was

higher than the Disciplinary Authority.  Having regard to Regulation

5(3), the Division Bench was not justified in holding that General

manager has no authority to pass the order of punishment.  

14. In the result, the appeals succeed and are accordingly allowed.

The order of the Division Bench impugned herein is set aside and

the order of the learned Single Judge remitting the matter to the

authorised Appellate Authority for reconsideration of the appeal is

restored.   

15. Parties to bear their respective costs.         

             ……….……………………J.                (S. ABDUL NAZEER)

….…………………………J.  (SANJIV KHANNA)

New Delhi; January 08, 2020.