Back
1995 Supreme(Kar) 381
Karnataka High Court
H.R.NAGENDRA RAO - Appellant
Versus
Indian Bank, Madras - Respondent
Decided On : 08-16-95
W.P. : 6353 of 1984
N.K.Kumar, P.S.RAJGOPAL, S.VIJAYASHANKAR
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the term 'misconduct' under Regulation 3 of the Conduct and Discipline Regulations of the Bank must be understood as meaning transgression and violation of established and defined rules of action, a dereliction of duty, or improper or unlawful behavior.
Headnote:
Misconduct - Bank Employee - Regulation 3, Regulation 24 - The court discussed the interpretation of misconduct under Regulation 3 and Regulation 24 of the Conduct and Discipline Regulations of the Bank. The court held that even when the regulations do not give a precise definition to the term 'misconduct', the said term has to be understood as meaning transgression and violation of some established and defined rule of action, a dereliction of duty or a behavior which is improper or unlawful. Any action that an officer-employee of the Bank takes in discharge of the duties of his Office, which action the holder of the Office had no right to perform or which he performs improperly would amount to misconduct. The conduct must be willful in character and must be forbidden for it is only the forbidden quality of the act which renders the same an act of 'misconduct'. The court also rejected the argument that the provisions of Regulation 3 are ultra vires of the Constitution as the same is capable of abuse by giving different interpretations to the expressions occurring therein at different times in respect of the different employees.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a bank manager, was found guilty of various acts of misconduct including drawing advance T. A. without adjustment, granting temporary overdraft facilities in excess of limits, purchasing self-drawn cheques and S. B. pay orders without recovery, and granting hypothecation loans without obtaining securities. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the punishment imposed upon him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charges of misconduct against the petitioner were sustainable under Regulation 3 and Regulation 24 of the Conduct and Discipline Regulations of the Bank. The court also held that the order of punishment and the dismissal of the appeal were legally valid.
Issues: The issues involved in the case were the interpretation of misconduct under Regulation 3 and Regulation 24 of the Conduct and Discipline Regulations of the Bank, the legality of the punishment imposed upon the petitioner, and the sufficiency of reasons in the appellate order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the term 'misconduct' under Regulation 3 must be understood as meaning transgression and violation of established and defined rules of action, a dereliction of duty, or improper or unlawful behavior. The court also ruled that the appellate order affirming the findings of the Disciplinary Authority did not require elaborate reasons as the order was one of affirmance.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed by the court, and no costs were awarded.
( 1 ) OF his compulsory retirement from the service of the respondent-Bank consequent upon the conduct of two disciplinary Enquiries in which he was found guilty of the charges framed against him. He also assails order dated 27th january, 1983 passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal against the punishment imposed upon him. A few facts need he stated at this stage.
( 2 ) PETITIONER was posted as Manager of the respondent-Bank's Virajpet Branch. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 1-6-1981 accusing him of different acts of omission and commission set out in the statement of imputations of misconduct accompanying the same. Briefly stated the charges framed were as under: (I) That he had drawn from the Sundries Receiveable account, advance T. A. without adjustment or proper submission of Bills, in the process committing temporary mis-appropriation of the amount drawn; (II) That he had without powers or in excess thereof granted temporary overdraft facilities in about 64 accounts which was far in excess of the limits fixed for his branch; (III) That he had without powers purchased, self drawn cheques and S. B. pay orders on other branches situated around 18 kilometres from his Branch and had taken no steps for recovery of the amounts detailed in the statement of imputations; (IV) That he had committed other acts of misconduct such as preparation of debit vouchers without any instrument cheque therefor, grant of O. C. C. facility to Sri m. E. Hassan, in excess of his powers and grant of hypothecation loans, without obtaining securities for the same.
( 3 ) THE petitioner submitted a reply to the charges where after a formal enquiry was conducted into the same by an Enquiry officer appointed for the purpose. The report submitted by the enquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty, and the charges proved against him.
( 4 ) IN the meantime, another charge-sheet dated 2nd of July, 1981 was also issued to the petitioner framing a few more charges against him which were also subjected to an enquiry resulting in a finding adverse to the petitioner in the same. Based upon the two enquiry reports mentioned above, the disciplinary Authority by his order dated 17th August, 1982 imposed upon the petitioner a major penalty of compulsory retirement from service with immediate effect.
( 5 ) AGGRIEVED the petitioner filed an appeal before the General Manager the Appellate Authority, who rejected the same. A review petition filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid two orders, also met with the same fate and was dismissed.
( 6 ) DISSATISFIED with the orders aforesaid, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a writ of certiorari quashing the said orders and for such directions as this Court may deem fit and proper.
( 7 ) APPEARING for the petitioner Sri Vijayashankar, Senior Advocate and Sri Rajgopal argued that the impugned orders of punishment were unsustainable as the charges levelled against the petitioner even if treated to have been proved could not amount to misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 24 of the Conduct and Discipline Regulations of the Bank. It was urged that Regulation 3 of the aforesaid regulations for the violation whereof the petitioner has been found guilty and punished, was a general provision which did not enumerate the acts of omission and commission alleged against the petitioner as tantamounting to commission of misconduct by an Employee- officer of the Bank. In the absence of such an enumeration, contended the learned Counsel an employee-Officer could not be accused or held guilty of the misconduct and punished on that account. Reliance was placed by them upon the judgments of the supreme Court in M/s. Glaxo Laboratories (I) Limited v presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut and Others and in A. L. Kalra v The Project and Equipment Corporation of India limited.
( 8 ) SRI N. K. Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand placed reliance
