1. Bank employee convicted of criminal offences under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act — Disciplinary action initiated based on conviction — Challenge to show cause notice. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 1763
1996(8) Supreme 377
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
S. Vasundara -Petitioner
versus
Canara Bank & Ors. -Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20461 of 1996
With
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20632 of 1996
Decided on 28-10-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : A.T.M. Sampath, Advocate.
Disciplinary action under Regulation 11 can be initiated against an employee convicted on a criminal charge or based on judicial trial findings, even if the sentence is suspended. The non-obstante clause in Regulation 11 exempts the authority from following the procedural requirements of Regulations 6, 7, and 8.
Headnote:SERVICE LAW-Canara Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations-Regulation 11 -Petitioner convicted for offences u/s 420 & 477A IPC and Section 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act-On appeal sentence suspended-Show cause notice for imposition of penalty under Regulation 4-Challenged on plea that conviction on basis of a criminal charge was not one of the specified enumerated misconduct-Authority was competent to issue show cause-Regulation 11 stood attracted-High Court was right in not interfering with notice. (Paras 3 & 4)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether disciplinary action under Regulation 11 requires the conviction to constitute specified misconduct or follow procedures under Regulations 6, 7, and 8. (Para 2 , 4 )
3. Suspension of sentence does not obliterate conviction; Regulation 11's non obstante clause allows penalties upon conviction regardless of procedures in Regulations 6, 7, or 8. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
4. Disciplinary action based on criminal conviction under a non obstante clause is independent of procedural requirements for misconduct and persists despite suspension of sentence. (Para 3 , 4 )
5. Special leave petitions dismissed. (Para 5 )
6. Does the suspension of a criminal sentence by an appellate court prevent a disciplinary authority from taking action based on the conviction?
No. The suspension of a sentence does not obliterate the conviction recorded by the trial court. The authorities remain competent to take disciplinary action based on the conviction even while the sentence is suspended pending appeal. (Para 2 , 4 )
7. Does a disciplinary authority need to follow standard procedural regulations for misconduct if the employee has been convicted of a criminal charge under a non obstante clause?
No. A non obstante clause in the regulations excludes the necessity of following standard procedures prescribed for misconduct when action is taken specifically due to a criminal conviction or on the strength of facts arrived at by a judicial trial. (Para 3 )
8. Must a criminal conviction necessarily constitute a specified misconduct under service regulations to justify disciplinary action under a provision specifically targeting criminal convictions?
No. Action taken on the basis of a criminal conviction or judicial trial findings is distinct from action taken for specified misconducts. Such action is based on the crime committed or judicial conclusions, irrespective of whether it is categorized as misconduct. (Para 4 )
ORDER
These special leave petitions have been filed against the Order of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court made on September 9, 1996 in Writ Petition Nos.17011/94 and 9851/87.
2. The admitted facts are that the petitioner, while working as a Manager of the respondent-Bank, was charged on November 3, 1986 for an offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 471, 477 IPC read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short, the Act ). The trial Court convicted the petitioner for an offence under Sections 420 and 477 A IPC and 5(2) read with 5(1) (d) of the Act and sentenced to undergo one year imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs. 3,000/- on each of the counts. On appeal, the High Court suspended the sentence on September 15, 1987 and enlarged the petitioner on bail. The respondents had issued a show cause notice pending trial to the petitioner on September 24, 1987. The petitioner challenged the same which was subsequently withdrawn. After the conviction, they issued another notice to the petitioner on September 12, 1994. The petitioner challenged the show cause notice in the above writ petition. The High Court in the impugned order dismissed the same. Shri Sampath, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the conviction on the basis of a criminal charge is not one of the specified enumerated misconducts. Removal does not lead the conviction due to the misconduct under the Regulation. Therefore, Regulations 6, 7 and 8 would not apply to the facts in this case. Consequently, Regulation 11 of the Canara Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations does not get attracted. The action taken, therefore, is without jurisdiction. We find no force in the contention. It is true that the High Court had suspended the operation of the judgment but nonetheless the conviction recorded by the trial Court cannot be obliterated. It is still conviction but only redemption is that by operation of the suspension, the petitioner is not required to undergo the sentence pending appeal in the High Court. Regulation 11 reads as under :
" Regulation 11 :
Notwithstanding anything contained in Regulation 6 or Regulation 7 or Regulation 8 the Disciplinary Authority may impose any of the penalties specified in Regulation 4, if the Officer employee has been convicted on a Criminal Charge or on the strength of facts or conclusions arrived at by a judicial trial."
3. The respondents have specifically stated that on account of the conviction by the Criminal Court on a Criminal Charge, the action is sought to be taken for taking action under the Regulations. The non obstante clause engrafted in Regulation 11 takes out the necessity to follow the procedure prescribed in Regulation 6, 7 or 8, as the case may be, by excluding the operation of Regulations 6, 7 and 8. The authority is empowered to take action against the delinquent employee for imposition of any of the penalties specified in Regulation 4. Only in two cases, Regulation 11 could be invoked, namely, conviction of a criminal charge or on the strength of facts of conclusions arrived at by a judicial trial. In view of the fact that criminal court had recorded the conviction of the appellant for offences under Sections 420, 477A and 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Act. The invocation of Regulation 11 stands applicable.
4. It is then contended that the conviction must be such that leads to the criminal misconduct under the Regulation and then only the action could be taken. We find no force in the contention. If the action is taken for any of the misconducts specified in Regulation 4, the procedural requirements contemplated under Regulations 6, 7 and 8, as the case may be, are required to be followed and order passed. In other words, if any delinquent employee of the Bank was convicted of a criminal charge, action is taken not on the basis of the misconducts on the basis of a crime committed by the employee by abuse of the office or on the basis
