2007 Supreme(SC) 827

2007(4) Supreme 474
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju, JJ.
UCO Bank & Anr — Petitioners
versus
Rajinder Lal Capoor — Respondent
Appeal (civil) 2739 of 2007
[Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO. 668 OF 2007]
Decided on : 18-05-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv., Rajesh Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Deepak Sibal, Ejaz Maqbool, Vikash Singh, Ms. Taruna Singh, Abhijeet Sinha, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINTS
Ordinarily the High Court should not interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.
The Regulation providing for continuation of disciplinary proceedings even after superannuation could be invoked only when the Disciplinary Proceedings had clearly been initiated prior to the respondent’s ceases to be in service.
An order of dismissal or removal from service can be passed only when an employee is in service.

Headnote:Service Law – Punishment – Ordinarily the High Court should not interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. (Para 16)

       (1996) 9 SCC 69; (1999) 5 SCC 762; (2003) 4 SCC 364; JT 2005 (1) SC 70 and (2006) 10 SCC 572 – Relied upon.

       Legal Fiction – A legal fiction must be given full effect but it is equally well-settled that the scope and ambit of a legal fiction should be confined to the object and purport for which the same has been created. (Para 19)

       2007 (5) SCALE 452 – Relied upon

       2006(10) SCALE 21; 2006 (9) SCALE 194; (2005) 2 SCC 638; (2004) 9 SCC 772 – Referred to.

       UCO Bank Officer Employees Services Regulations, 1979 – Regulation 20 (3) (iii) – Departmental proceedings – Continuation of after retirement – The Regulation could be invoked only when the Disciplinary Proceedings had clearly been initiated prior to the respondent’s ceases to be in service – Departmental proceeding, it is trite law, is not initiated merely by issuance of a show cause notice, it is initiated only when a charge sheet is issued – Respondent having been allowed to superannuate, only a proceeding for withholding of his pension under the Pension Regulations could have been initiated – Discipline and Appeal Regulations were not attracted – Consequently further actions of the respondents were illegal and without jurisdiction. (Paras 21 and 22)

       AIR 1991 SC 2010; 2007 (5) SCALE 724 – Relied upon.

       Service Law – Dismissal – An order of dismissal or removal from service can be passed only when an employee is in service – As Regulation 20 is not applicable in the case of the respondent, the entire proceeding held to be vitiated in law – Respondent held entitled to all retirement benefits. (Para 23)

       Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLI, rule 33 – The entire disciplinary proceeding having been held to be vitiated, it is permissible for the respondent to raise all contentions in support of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, in terms of the provisions contained in Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code and the principles akin thereto. (Para 25)

       Facts of the case:

       Appellant No.1 is a Nationalised Bank. It framed several regulations in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Section 19 (2) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, inter alia, UCO Bank Officer Employees’ Services Regulations, 1979. The Government of India launched a scheme known as ‘Prime Minister Rozgar Yojana’ (PMRY) with an objective to provide sustained employment to 10 lacs educated unemployed Urban Youth.

       Board of Directors of the Appellant-Bank in terms of a Circular letter dated 31.07.1995 authorized the Branch Managers in Scales I & II to sanction composite loans upto Rs.1 lac,

       Respondent while working in the capacity of the Branch Manager of his Branch disbursed loan within the capacity to various persons whose names had been recommended by the Chairman, Task Force Committee under PMRY Scheme, 1996.

       For his alleged acts of omission and commission which included the purported irregularities committed by him in sanctioning and disbursing the loans under the PMRY Scheme, a show cause notice was issued upon him on 24.10.1996. On the eve of his retirement i.e. on 30.10.1996, another show cause notice was issued to him purported to be in connection with the irregularities committed by him in sanctioning and disbursing loans under the said Scheme, while working as Branch Manager at Kohara Branch of the appellant-Bank in 1996. He was allowed to superannuate on 1.11.1996. He was however, not paid his retiral benefits. He made a representation therefor. On the premise that a sum of Rs. 1 lac could not be recovered from the two borrowers, the retiral benefits were not disbursed. The Regional Office of the appellant-bank, however, recommended grant of terminal benefits in favour of the respondent, by a letter dated 14.05.1998 addressed to the Zonal Office of the appellant-bank. Despite the said recommendation, a charge-sheet was issued on or about 13.11.1998. The Disciplinary Authority by an order dated 27.09.1999, imposed upon the respondent, the penalty of removal from service.

       Findings of the Court:

       Entire disciplinary proceeding was vitiated in law and the respondent was entitled to all retirement benefits.