Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates appearing for:
Appellant: Sri B.S. Shankaranarayana, Adv.
Respondent: Sri M.N. Prasanna, Sri P.S. Rajgopal, Advs.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Headnote:(A) Canara Bank (Offices) Service Regulations, 1979 - Approbation and reprobation - Principle of - Applicabity - Respondent in earlier round of proceedings emerging successful - Contempt proceedings initiated by personally impleading two high ranking officers - DPC constituted before which respondent had to appear as well - Respondent seeking information as to who are all to comprise the committee with an apprehension that those two officers may also participate - Bank failing to provide - After participation respondent questioning constitution of committee - Held, there is no approbation and reprobation on part of respondent for he was not aware as to who were part of DPC.
       Held: The very reply issued on behalf of the appellant herein would indicate that they do not eve allege that the respondent hreein is aware of the persons who were part of the committee keeping in view the Regulations for the said purpose, but on the other hand they have categorically stated that the names cannot be furnished which would clearly indicate that the respondent at the outset was not aware as to who were the persons that formed the DPC. Therefore, the contentio on behalf of the appellant that the respondent herein having participated despite knowing were in the DPC, cannot question the same is not sustainable nor would the decisions cited in this regard come to theri aid.
       (B) Canara Bank (Offices) Service Regulations, 1979 - Bias - Constitution of Departmental Promotion Committee - Respondent initiating contempt proceeding against two officers - Same officers forming part of DPC before which respondent had to appear for promotion purposes - Held, proceedings cannot be fair.
       Held: On the face of it when Sri T.R. Sridharan and Sri M.V. Kamath were made parties to the contempt petition by name and when they had taken up a contention that the respondent herein is not entitled to promotion, more particularly at an initial stage when it was contended that he is not entitled even to Scale III and if the same persons from a part of the DPC which has denied promotion to the respondent to Scale IV, the natural consequence would be that it cannot inspire confidence in any person person that it has been done in a fair manner. Even though the Bank contends that the assignment of marks had been done by a separate committee, the fact that by such time, the DPC and the said committee had been constituted with the approval of the very same Chairman and Managing Director and that the said two persons would have the control of the entire promotion process is not difficult to imagine and visualise in such a situation, that too, in a circumstance where the respondent who had been graded a ‘excellent’ being awarded only 27.15 marks towards ability when his performance has been assessed highly.
        Though at the outset the entire facts of the present case would point out that the reasonable apprehensions of the respondent herein cannot be rules out and further in a normal circumstance, though we would have liked to dwell into a deeper consideration with regard to ‘bias’ and ‘prejudice’, in the present case, considering the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Mahadevan (AIR 1994 SC 961) has expressed that even without imputing bias, in certain circumstances, it would not be fair or proper for such highly placed officials to be a part of the committee, in that view such an exercise would not be necessary since the situation in the case decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the instant case are almost identical. Yet another aspect is that even the contention that DPC has done nothing except approving the list prepared by the Committee of Deputy General Manager also cannot be accepted since that would mean non-application of mind to the entire promotion process which is not desirable. In this context, it is also necessary to find out as to whether in the instant case it would have been possibel for Sri T.R. Sridharan and Sri M.V. Karanth to have withdrawn themselves.
        The Chairman and Managing Director being a highly placed official in all propriety should have chosen to constitute such a DPC, more particularly when they aware of the rival contentions which were being urged in the contempt petiion and also in view of the communication dated 16.4.1998 to the respondent herein stating that his claim for placement in the SMG Scale IV is being placed before the DPC.
        Even from the regulatio providing for constitution of DPC, the Chairman and Managing Director had the opinion of constituting a committee not comprising himself or Sri M.V. Kamath i.e., one of the General Managers and propriety demanded that when both of them were the respondents in the contempt petition in a similar situation as in the case dealt by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was incumbent upon them to have withdrawn from the committee at least to adapt a fair procedure.

Canara Bank vs Surendra Prabhu K - 2008 Supreme(Kar) 479