Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.A. SWAMI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.R. LAKSHMANAN
CANARA BANK
Versus
S. VASUNDARA, CANARA BANK
W.P.Appeal No.11235 of 1987
Decided On : 08-11-1996
SUSPENSION - BANK EMPLOYEE - VALIDITY - MISTAKE IN ORDER - AMENDMENT - PRINCIPLES - CANARA BANK OFFICER EMPLOYEES (CONDUCT) REGULATIONS, 1976 - CANARA BANK OFFICER EMPLOYEES (DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL) REGULATIONS, 1976 - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of Canara Bank, was placed under suspension by an order dated July 9, 1985, for alleged acts of misconduct. The suspension order erroneously stated that the misconduct occurred at Grand Central, Madurai Branch, instead of the Extension Counter at Parasakthi Womens College, Courtailam. The petitioner challenged the suspension order in a writ petition, which was allowed by the High Court on the ground that the suspension order lacked application of mind. The Bank filed an appeal against the High Court's order and also issued a second suspension order, dated September 24, 1987, amending the earlier order to include the correct place of misconduct. The petitioner challenged the second suspension order in another writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Bank had the authority to amend the suspension order to correct the mistake, as the amendment was made within a reasonable time and did not prejudice the petitioner's rights. The Court also held that the suspension order was valid, as it was issued in accordance with the Canara Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 and Canara Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976.
Issues: 1. Whether the Bank had the authority to amend the suspension order to correct the mistake? 2. Whether the suspension order was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Bank had the authority to amend the suspension order to correct the mistake, as the amendment was made within a reasonable time and did not prejudice the petitioner's rights. The Court relied on the principle that a minor error in the wording of a suspension order will not vitiate the entire order, as long as the order is issued in accordance with the relevant regulations and does not prejudice the employee's rights. 2. The Court held that the suspension order was valid, as it was issued in accordance with the Canara Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 and Canara Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. The Court noted that the petitioner was charged with grave misconduct, including misappropriation of funds, and that the suspension order was necessary to maintain the purity of service and to prevent the petitioner from interfering with the investigation.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging the second suspension order. The Court held that the Bank had the authority to amend the suspension order to correct the mistake, and that the suspension order was valid.
A. R. LAKSHMANAN, J.
( 1 ) WRIT Appeal No. 1757 of 1987 is filed against the final order of Mohan, J (as he then was) in Writ Petition No. 4318 of 1987, dated September 15, 1987. Writ Petition No. 4318 of 1987 was filed by Mrs. S. Vasundara against an order of suspension issued by the Bank, dated July 9, 1985, which reads as follows :
"dpl MDC-CHF/2480 Proceedings of the General Manager Sub :-Enquiry against Smt. S. Vasundara (12273) Accountant. Whereas departmental proceedings are contemplated against Smt. S. Vasundara (12273), Accountant for certain acts of misconduct on her part while functioning as Accountant of Grand Central, Madurai Branch; Whereas it is considered necessary and expedient to place the said Smt. S. Vasundara, Accountant, under suspension pending enquiry; Now therefore, the said Smt. S. Vasundara is hereby suspended from service of the Bank with effect from the date of service of this proceedings until further orders; She, shall, during the suspension period be entitled to receive subsistence allowance at the rate of half the basic pay which she was receiving on the date Prior to the date of suspension and other proportionate reduced allowances except conveyance allowance, entertainment allowance, half yearly closing allowance and special allowance. However, allowances not linked to basic pay will be paid at the usual rates. During the occupation of Banks quarters 12 1/2% or 10% of the basic pay or subsistence allowance whichever is lower will be deducted from the subsistence allowance for furnished or unfurnished accommodation respectively provided by the Bank and Smt. S. Vasundara shall give a mandate for the same. Smt. S. Vasundara will he entitled to receive the payment of subsistence allowance only on her furnishing to the Bank a Certificate that she is not engaged in any other employment, business, profession or vocation. " Mohan, J (as he then was) had allowed Writ Petition No. 4318 of 1987 on the short ground that the suspension order stated"whereas departmental proceedings are contemplated against Smt. S. Vasundara (12273) Accountant for such acts of misconduct on her part while functioning as Accountant of Grand Central, Madurai Branch. "
and no charges had been framed against the petitioner for any act of misconduct at Grand Central, Madurai. The order of suspension came to be passed by virtue of regulation 12 of the Canara Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 and Canara Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, which provides :(i) an Officer employee may be placed under suspension by the competent authority : a) Where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending or; b) Where a case against him in respect of any Criminal Offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial. " ground of attack in so far as the order of interim suspension of the petitioner in writ petition No. 11235 of 1987 is that the charge memo which came to be issued on October 15, 1986 was served on her on November 3, 1986 relates to the acts of delinquencies, which took place while she was functioning at the Extension Counter of Sri Parasakthi College for women, Courtailam and that therefore by no stretch of imagination, the order of interim suspension 11 could refer to any misconduct on her part while functioning as Accountant of Grand central, Madurai.
( 2 ) THE respondents-Bank filed a detailed counter affidavit and stated as follows :
"an inadvertent mistake has crept in the above narration. The place where she was working at the time she was reported to have committed acts of gross misconduct in respect whereof departmental proceedings were contemplated (subsequently taken) has been mentioned as Grand Central, Madurai Branch instead of Extension Counter at Parasakthi Womens College. In other words, the place where she was working at the time of issuing the suspension order has been typed instead of the branch where the misconduct was committed. The pet
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
