Judgement

1. S. B. SINHA, J. :- Review Petitioners herein have filed this application for review of this Courts judgment and order dated 18-05-2007 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2739 of 2007.

Reported in 2007 AIR SCW 3656 : AIR 2007 SC 2129

2. 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 (for short "the 1979 Regulations") should not be taken against him by notices dated 24-10-1996 and 30-10-1996.

3. 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 a departmental proceedings.

4. A writ petition filed by him was allowed. Petitioner-Bank filed an appeal upon grant of special leave thereagainst. One of the questions which arose for consideration before this Court was whether in absence of any charge-sheet having been issued, the disciplinary proceedings could be said to have been initiated in view of the decisions of this Court in Union of India etc. etc. v. K.V. Jankiraman, etc. etc. [AIR 1991 SC 2010]; Union of India and Ors. v. Sangram Keshari Nayak [2007 (6) SCALE 348] and Coal India Ltd. and Ors. v. Saroj Kumar Mishra [2007 (5) SCALE 724].

5. When the said question was raised, the 1979 Regulations were not before usis Court asked the learned counsel to hand over the regulations by the next day. It was not complied with. 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. It is in the aforementioned factual backdrop, this review petition has been filed.

6. In the review application, the petitioner inter alia seeks to bring to our notice the relevant provisions of the 1979 Regulations so as to contend that by reason thereof, a legal fiction has been created to the effect that a disciplinary proceedings shall be deemed to be pending, if the delinquent officer was placed under suspension or any notice was issued to him to show cause why any disciplinary proceedings shall not be initiated against him and will be deemed to be pending untill the final orders are passed by the competent authority.

7. Indisputably, the appellants have framed three different regulations governing the conditions of service of its employees.

8. The UCO Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (for short "the 1976 Regulations) have been framed by reason of Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of 1991 AIR SCW 2276 2007 AIR SCW 2662 Undertakings) Act, 1970 in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and with the previous sanction of the Central Government. Regulation 4 of the 1976 Regulations provides for the penalties. Regulation 6 provides for the procedure for imposing major penalties. Sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 6 provides that no proceeding for imposing major penalties shall be initiated except after an inquiry is held in accordance with the provisions thereof. Sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 6 provides that when the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there were grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct, an inquiry officer is to be appointed. Sub-Regulations (3), (4) and (5) of Regulation 6 read as under :

"(3) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority shall frame definite and distinct charges on the basis of the allegations against the officer employee and the articles of charge, together with a statement of the allegations, on which they are based, shall be communicated In writing to the officer employee, who shall be required to submit within such time as may be specified by the Disciplinary Authority (not exceeding 15 days)