2008 Supreme(SC) 565

2008(2) Supreme 795
Supreme Court of india
S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju, JJ.
UCO Bank & Anr. — Petitioners
versus
Rajinder Lal Capoor — Respondent
Review Petition (civil) 748 of 2007
Decided on : 31-03-2008

Important Point
UCO Bank Regulations 1976 and 1979 operate in two different fields and there is no nexus between the two.

Headnote:(a)UCO Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979 – Regulation 20 – Although captioned ‘termination of service’, Regulation 20 ex facie does not deal with termination of service by way of misconduct – Scope of the provision is limited – Such eventuality is governed by the 1976 Regulations and the 1976 Conduct Regulations. (Paras 11 and 18)

       (b)UCO Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979 – Regulation 20 (3)(iii) – Clause (iii) of Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 20 is an independent provision providing for continuation of the disciplinary proceedings – Such disciplinary proceedings must have been initiated in terms of the 1976 Regulations. (Para 15)

       (c)UCO Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979 – Regulation 20 and regulation 6, UCO Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 – 1979 Regulations would be attracted when no disciplinary proceeding is possible to be initiated – Hence Disciplinary proceedings are initiated only in terms of the 1976 Regulations and not in terms of the 1979 Regulations – There is no nexus between the two Regulations and both operate in different fields. (Para 16)

        (d)UCO Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 – Regulation 6 – Service of charge sheet is a necessary ingredient for initiation of disciplinary proceeding – When a proceeding is initiated for the purpose of taking any disciplinary action on the ground of any misconduct, indisputably the procedures laid down in the 1976 Regulations are required to be resorted to. (Paras 17 and 19)

       (e)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 20)

       (1951) 2 All.E.R 587; (2007) 6 SCC 694; JT 2008 (1) SC 496; JT 2008 (1) SC 31 – Relied upon.

       (f)Interpretation of Statutes – If two or more provisions of a statute appear to carry different meanings, a harmonious construction which would give effect to all of them should be preferred – A Court of law should not presume a ‘cassus omissus’ but if there is any, it shall not supply the same. (Para 20)

       2008 (3) SCALE 469 – Relied upon.(g)UCO Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 – Regulation 6 – Unless and until a charge sheet is drawn up, a disciplinary proceeding for the purpose of the 1976 Regulations cannot be initiated – Ordinarily no disciplinary proceedings can be continued in absence of any rule after an employee reaches his age of superannuation – A rule which would enable the disciplinary authority to continue a disciplinary proceeding despite the officer reaching the age of superannuation must be a statutory rule – A’ fortiori it must be a rule applicable to a disciplinary proceedings. (Paras 21 and 22)

       AIR 1991 SC 2010; 2007 (6) SCALE 348; 2007 (5) SCALE 724; (1973) 1 SCC 813 – Relied upon.

       (2007) 5 SCC 742 – Referred.

       Facts of the case:

       1.Respondent was working with the appellant Bank. Almost immediately prior to his retirement, he was asked to show cause as to why action under the UCO Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979 should not be taken against him by notices dated 24.10.1996 and 30.10.1996.

       2. Respondent reached his age of superannuation on 30.11.1996. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him immediately thereafter. A charge sheet, however, was issued only on 13.11.1998. He was dismissed from service upon initiating departmental proceedings.

       3.A writ petition filed by him was allowed. Petitioner Bank filed an appeal upon grant of special leave thereagainst.

       4.When the question whether in absence of any chargesheet having been issued, the disciplinary proceedings could be said to have been initiated in view of the decisions of this Court was asked, the 1979 Regulations were not before the Court. The Court asked the learned counsel to handover the regulations by the next day. It was not complied with.

       5.However, on 18.05.2007 when the judgment was to be delivered, a prayer was made to defer the pronouncement of the judgment so as to enable the appellants to place the regulations. The said prayer was declined and the judgment was pronounced.

       6.It is in the aforementioned factual backdrop that this review petition has been filed.

       Findings of the Court :

       Regulations 1976 and 1979 operate in two different fields and there is no nexus between the two.

       Result : Application dismissed.