2006 Supreme(SC) 179

2006(2) Supreme 343
Supreme Court of India
(From Calcutta High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Dalveer Bhandari, JJ.
Canara Bank & Ors. —Appellants
versus
Swapan Kumar Pani & Anr. —Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1641 of 2004
With
Civil Appeal No. 1642 of 2004
Decided on 24-2-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Ravindra Kumar, S. Muralidhar, Krishna Kumar, Rani Nanda, Amit Sharma and Ms. Lupanlu Gangnei, Advocates.

Headnote:Service Law—Canara Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976—Regulations 18 and 21—Review and power to relax time - limit and to condone delay —Departmental proceedings for charges of misconduct were initiated against respondent, an Accountant in appellant Bank—Charge was that he unauthorisedly removed special bearer bonds worth Rs. 2 lacs which were pledged by a party as collateral security—He was to be not guilty in the enquiry and was exonerated by Disciplinary Authority by order dated 29.3.1989—Second charge sheet on same facts but with charge that respondent failed to protect bank’s interest was issued and inquiry commenced—Managing Director, Reviewing Authority came to know from CBI investigation that 5 bonds out of 20 were disposed of by respondent through a private person after a show cause review the first order which had exonerated respondent by an order dated 26.10.1995—Appellant bank issued a fresh charge-sheet on 31.11.1996—Respondent filed writ petition questioning legality and validity of charge-sheet—High Court refused to pass stay order—In the disciplinary proceedings, respondent was found guilty and punishment of dismissal was passed—Division Bench set aside the order holding that review by Authority was unauthorised and charge-sheet was liable to be quashed but respondent was denied back wages and liberty was given to bank to initiate fresh proceedings on proper material if any—Appeals—Power of review under Regulation 18 could have been applied only where matter had not attained finality—Having been exonerated, respondent could not have been charge-sheeted—Impugned judgment was unassailable to that extent—No liberty to proceed on fresh material could have been granted—Discretion in refusing back wages however called for no interference.

       Held : The said Regulations have statutory force. An authority exercising such statutory power was required to act within the four corners thereof. He was bound by the limitations prescribed therein. Regulation 18 could have been applied in a case where the power of review is exercised in respect of a proceeding which has not attained finality. In this case, however, admittedly two charge sheets were issued and at least in one of them the first respondent was exonerated. The said order attained finality. The second one was not pursued despite a report having been submitted by the Inquiry Officer evidently because of the first disciplinary proceeding. As the first respondent was exonerated there was no question of enhancement of punishment and in that view of the matter second part of Regulation 18 had also no application. As no order had been passed extending the time, evidently the power under Regulation 21 had also not been exercised. We may notice that the first respondent was exonerated by an order dated 29.3.1989 whereas the purported order of review was passed on 25.7.1995, i.e. after a period of 6 years, which was much beyond the period of limitation. The power was also not exercised within a reasonable time. Furthermore, the charges levelled against the first respondent herein are in 2 parts; (i) that he had on 6.11.1985 removed 20 special bearer bonds pledged by the Managing Director of M/s Utkal Iron & Steel Industries from the strong room of the bank; and (ii) out of those special bearer bonds five bearer bonds were disposed of at Calcutta for Rs. 59,500/-. Admittedly, the first part of the charge was covered by the first charge sheet dated 20.5.1987. He having been exonerated therefrom, no fresh charge sheet could have been issued in absence of any statutory power in this behalf. Only the second part of the said charge sheet, is said to be based on new materials purported to have been discovered by the Managing Director of the bank. An inquiry in the second part of the charge sheet could have been possible, if the first part thereof charge viz. the respondent had removed the said bonds pledged by M/s Utkal Iron & Steel Industries was not required to be proved. As the bank cannot be permitted to reopen the first part of the charge, it a fortiori cannot be allowed to enquire into the second part also as both the parts of the charge are interlinked with each other. In other words, proof of first part of the charge was wholly dependent upon the first part. The impugned judgment to that extent is unassailable. The High Court, however, committed an error in granting liberty to the bank to initiate a fresh inquiry. If the High Court was of the opinion that the new materials purported to have been found were not sufficient for initiation of the enquiry in question, we fail to understand as to on what basis liberty was given to the bank to initiate a fresh inquiry, more so when the misconduct, if any, was committed as far back as in the year 1985. We are, however, of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of this case the discretion exercised by the High Court in refusing back wages to the first respondent herein need not be interfered with. (Paras 12 to 15)