Back
Judges : VARGHESE KALLIATH
E.S.Nambiar - Appellant
Versus
Union Bank of India - Respondent
Case No : O.P.No.1211 of 1980
Decided On : 03/11/1991
Advocates Appeared :
K. Balakrishnan & P.K. Ravikrlshnan For Petitioner P. Balagangadhara Menon For Respondents
Disciplinary Proceedings - Union Bank of India - Regulations 1970 - S.19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 - Violation of Regulations - Judicial Review
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of Union Bank of India, challenged an order of dismissal passed against him in a disciplinary proceeding. The petitioner alleged that the disciplinary authority did not adhere to the Regulations, rendering the entire proceedings and the dismissal order void.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the enquiry proceedings were vitiated for not conforming to the requirements contemplated under Regulation 0 of the Regulations. As a result, the court quashed the dismissal order and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner in service without delay.
Issues: The main issue was whether the disciplinary authority adhered to the provisions of the Regulations in conducting the enquiry proceedings and passing the dismissal order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if a statutory authority violates its own Rules or Regulations in disciplinary proceedings, the final decision, even if it is dismissal or any other punishment, can be declared void by the court. The court emphasized the duty of the disciplinary authority to observe all relevant regulations imposed by the statute and the entitlement of the employee to a declaration if there is a violation of statutory provisions.
Final Decision: The court quashed the dismissal order and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner in service without delay, while allowing the 1st respondent to initiate a new enquiry on the same charges in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations.
Petitioner challenges an order of dismissal passed against him in a disciplinary proceeding. Petitioner was in the service of the 1st respondent-Union Bank of India. He joined service of the Bank in 1958. He was promoted to the category of Officer in 19o9 and he became an Officer Grade I in 1978. He was working as Branch Manager of Quilon during the period 1977 to 1981. From Quilon Branch, he was transferred to Calicut Branch. This was on 2o-o-1981. Petitioner sub mils that when he was transferred from Quilon Branch to Calicut the successor in office took charge of the Branch and relieved the petitioner. The successor in office certified that he has taken a complete and effective charge of the branch from the petitioner and the petitioner has been relieved. The successor further confirmed that he has satisfied himself that all the account books are balanced and that the cash, securities, valuables, godown, documents, etc. have been duly verified by him and found to be in order. Further, petitioner submitted that in the periodical inspections no irregularity was found and is so noted in the inspection reports.
2. Ext.P2 was served on the petitioner by the disciplinary authority. By Ext.P2, articles of charges were framed against the petitioner. Petitioner. was informed that an enquiry into the charges framed will be held against him in terms of the provisions of Union Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and appeal) Regulations, 197o (hereinafter referred to as 'the regulations'). In Ext.P2, it is also stated that the place, date and time of the enquiry and the name of the inquiring authority will be intimated to the petitioner in due course. Ext.P2 directed the petitioner to submit any statement of defence, if he wants to file* within 15 days of receipt thereof. These directions are given, it appears, in accordance with Regulation o of the Regulations.
3. Subsequently, some more charges were added. Ext.P3 is a memorandum relating to the allegations regarding certain charges. Ext.P4 is another memorandum relating to three charges. Ext.P4 is dated 13-1-1983. In Ext.P4, the disciplinary authority has said that an enquiry into the charges mentioned in Ext.P4 will be held by Shri. M.K, Satyamurthy, Assistant Superintendent (P), Regional Office, Ernakulam along with the charges levelled against the petitioner vide memorandum No.DP:IR:2972 dated 18-3-1982 and DP:IR:12808 dated 10-11-1982. In Ext.P4, the disciplinary authority directed the petitioner that if he so desires to submit his statement of defence, he may do so, directly to the enquiry officer within 7 days of receipt ofExt.P4.On 29th June, 1983, petitioner was served with another memo of charges. There also, petitioner was directed, if he desires to submit his written statement of defence. He may do so directly to the enquiry officer within 7 days of receipt thereof.
4. The enquiry officer made a detailed enquiry on the charges framed against the petitioner. Number of records and witnesses were examined and finally found that some of the charges were proved against the petitioner. The enquiry officer did not make any suggestion as to the penalty to be imposed on the petitioner. The disciplinary authority considered the enquiry report and passed the impugned order,
Exl.P7. Ext.P7 is dated 23-11-1984. By Ext.P7, the disciplinary authority found that in his opinion the ends of justice will be met by imposing on the petitioner the punishment of dismissal from service of the Bank with immediate effect and accordingly exercising his powers conferred under Regulation 7 of the. Regulations, ordered punishment of dismissal from service of the Bank with immediate effect.
5. Petitioner filed an appeal. Ext.P9 is the appeal memorandum. Several grounds have been raised stating that the punishment is disproportionate to the offence and also that the punishment is unsustainable both in law and on account of procedural impropriety. Ext. PIO is a petition for adding some more
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
