Back
2002 Supreme(Kar) 401
Karnataka High Court
Gopichander M.L. - Appellant
Versus
Andhra Bank - Respondent
Decided On : 06-25-02
W.P. : 12948 of 1995
KASTURI LAL, P.S.RAJGOPAL
An officer against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending cannot resign from service without the prior approval of the competent authority, and any notice of resignation given during the disciplinary proceedings shall not take effect unless it is accepted by the competent authority.
Headnote:
SERVICE LAW - BANKING - RESIGNATION - PENDING DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - REJECTION OF RESIGNATION - VALIDITY - ANDHRA BANK (OFFICERS) SERVICE REGULATIONS, 1982 - REGULATION 20(2) AND 20(3) - CONDUCT REGULATIONS - REGULATION 13(1) - ABSENCE FROM DUTY WITHOUT PERMISSION - UNAUTHORISED ABSENCE - CHARGE MEMO - VALIDITY - ENQUIRY - PUNISHMENT - WRIT JURISDICTION - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an officer of respondent-Andhra Bank, was placed under suspension and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. He was subsequently posted to work at the Zonal Office of the bank at Bhubaneswar. While working there, he submitted a notice of resignation under Regulation 20(2) of the Andhra Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1982, to resign from service with effect from March 20, 1995. However, the bank rejected his resignation in view of the contemplated disciplinary proceedings against him. The petitioner challenged the rejection of his resignation and the issuance of charge memos alleging irregularities and unauthorized absence from duty.
Finding of the Court:
1. The bank was justified in rejecting the petitioner's resignation under Regulation 20(3) of the Service Regulations, which provides that an officer against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending shall not resign from service without the prior approval of the competent authority, and any notice of resignation given during the disciplinary proceedings shall not take effect unless it is accepted by the competent authority. 2. The issuance of charge memos alleging irregularities and unauthorized absence from duty was valid as the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were deemed to be pending until final orders were passed by the competent authority, as per Regulation 20(3)(b) of the Service Regulations. 3. The petitioner's absence from duty without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority constituted misconduct under Regulation 13(1) of the Conduct Regulations, and the enquiry officer's finding of guilt and the disciplinary authority's imposition of punishment were not perverse or without evidence.
Issues: 1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's resignation by the bank was valid in view of the pending disciplinary proceedings against him? 2. Whether the issuance of charge memos alleging irregularities and unauthorized absence from duty was valid despite the earlier charge sheet being superseded? 3. Whether the petitioner's absence from duty without prior permission constituted misconduct and whether the enquiry officer's finding of guilt and the disciplinary authority's imposition of punishment were justified?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Regulation 20(3) of the Andhra Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1982, empowers the bank to withhold permission to resign from service if disciplinary proceedings are pending against an officer. The petitioner's resignation, submitted during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, could not take effect unless accepted by the competent authority. 2. The earlier charge sheet being superseded did not amount to dropping the proceedings, as Regulation 20(3)(b) of the Service Regulations deems disciplinary proceedings to be pending until final orders are passed by the competent authority. 3. Regulation 13(1) of the Conduct Regulations prohibits officers from absenting themselves from duty without prior permission. The petitioner's absence from duty without obtaining such permission constituted misconduct, and the enquiry officer's finding of guilt and the disciplinary authority's imposition of punishment were based on evidence and were not perverse.
Final Decision: The petitions challenging the rejection of the petitioner's resignation, the issuance of charge memos, and the disciplinary proceedings were dismissed. The bank's actions were held to be valid and justified under the relevant regulations.
( 1 ) SINCE common questions of facts and law are involved in these two writ petitions, they are disposed off by this common order.
( 2 ) FACTS in W. P. No. 12946/1995: petitioner had joined the services of respondent-Andhra Bank, a body constituted under the provisions of Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) act, 1980, as Probationary-Officer-Grade III on January 5, 1976. While in service, he had earned successive promotions. At the time of filing of this writ petition, he was working as officer, Middle Management-Grade Scale II.
( 3 ) WHILE he was working at Jayanagar branch of the respondent Bank, he was kept under suspension by an order dated July 21, 1986 and subsequently disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by issuing a charge memo dated September 13, 1986. The proceedings culminated in imposing a penalty of 'censure' by the disciplinary authority by an order dated November 7/9, 1994. The disciplinary authority had further ordered that the period of suspension shall not be treated as on duty except for the purpose of terminal benefits. In the very same order, petitioner was informed that the order of suspension made on July 21, 1986 is revoked and he is posted to work at Zonal Office of the bank, Bhubaneswar, State of Orissa.
( 4 ) DISTURBED by the punishment imposed, petitioner was before this Court in w. P. No. 10896/1995. This Court by its order dated July 1, 1999 was pleased to dispose off the petition and in that Court was pleased to modify the orders made by the disciplinary authority as under:"the petitioner shall be treated as being on duty during the period of suspension for all purposes and he shall be entitled to full pay and the increments and all the consequential monetary benefits. The respondent shall within a period of 60 days from the date of this order, calculate and give the petitioner, all the monetary benefits due to the petitioner by reason of this order. The respondent shall act on the basis of the copy of the order received by it or on the basis of a certified copy of the order produced by the petitioner whichever event occurs early. The petitioner is also entitled to receive costs of Rs. 2,500. 00 from the respondent. "
( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order of the learned single Judge, the respondent Bank had carried the matter in an appeal No. 5826/1999. A Division Bench of this Court by its order dated March 20, 2000 was pleased to reject the writ appeal and was further pleased to direct the appellant Bank to pay an additional cost of rs. 3,000/- to the respondent therein.
( 6 ) PETITIONER, pursuant to the directions issued by the respondent Bank in its order dated november 7/9, 1994 reported for duty at Zonal office of the respondent Bank at Bhubaneswar. After reporting, petitioner in terms of Andhra bank (Officers') Service Regulations (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'regulations') submitted a notice of resignation dated December 20, 1994 and in that informed the authorities that he shall stand relieved from the services of the Bank after the expiry of three months' notice period i. e. with effect from March 20, 1995. The letter of the petitioner dated December 20, 1994 is as under: from 20. 12. 1994"m. L. Gopichander mm-II, Code No. 3313 andhra Bank, Zonal Office, bhubaneswar. To the Asst. General Manager andhra Bank, Zonal Office bhubaneswar. Sir, sub: Resignation from the services of the bank under Regulation 20 (2) of Andhra bank (Officers) Service Regulation, 1982 under Sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 20 of the ABOSR, I hereby give you notice of my intention to leave the services of the bank with effect from 3 (three) months from today. This may kindly be taken as notice required under the Regulations. Please note that I shall stand relieved from the services of the Bank on the expiry of 3 months from today that is with effect from March 20, 1995. Thanking you, yours faithfully. Sd/- (M. L. Gopichander ). "
( 7 ) T
