Back
2025 Supreme(MP) 1012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
DEEPAK KHOT, J.
R.R. Dass - Petitioner
Versus
The General Manager (H.R.D.) and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 15154 of 2010
Decided On : 14-11-2025
For the Petitioner: Shri Parag Tiwari.
For the Respondents: Shri Abhinav Sunil Kherdikar.
A superior officer is competent to impose disciplinary penalties if their rank exceeds the minimum threshold specified in the governing statutory regulations, which take priority over general administrative service guidelines regarding professional hierarchies.
Headnote:(A) Banking Regulations - Discipline and Appeal Rules - Disciplinary authority - Competency - Penalty of compulsory retirement - Whether an officer higher in rank than the prescribed minimum disciplinary authority possesses the competence to impose major penalties - Held, yes. Where regulations specify a minimum rank to act as the disciplinary authority, any officer of a rank higher than that threshold is inherently competent to initiate proceedings and impose penalties under the governing statutory framework. (Paras 9, 10)
(B) Service Law - Precedence of Regulations - Statutory regulations governing disciplinary procedures take precedence over general administrative service regulations regarding increment and allowance sanctions. Courts may decide pure questions of law concerning jurisdictional competency directly, without remanding the matter to appellate authorities, when the legal position is clear. (Paras 11, 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a mid-level employee, challenged an order of compulsory retirement, contending that the officer who issued the penalty lacked the requisite competency according to service service rules. The petitioner argued that administrative hierarchies governing salary and allowances should define the disciplinary authority, while the respondents maintained that the officer in question held a rank higher than the minimum required under the specific discipline and appeal regulations.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that disciplinary proceedings are governed by specific statutory regulations which establish the minimum rank for issuing penalties. It observed that the punishing officer held a rank higher than the minimum scale prescribed in the disciplinary schedule, thereby rendering the punishment order valid.
Issues: The main issues were the competency of the disciplinary authority to impose a major penalty and whether statutory disciplinary rules override general administrative service regulations in matters of hierarchy.
Ratio Decidendi: An official holding a rank superior to the minimum threshold prescribed in the disciplinary schedule is legally authorized to impose penalties. Statutory provisions pertaining specifically to discipline and conduct must prevail over general service or administrative regulations during the adjudication of punitive measures.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of reliefs sought and factual context of the petition. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner asserts that the penalty was imposed by an authority lacking competence under the 1979 regulations. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. respondents argue that 1976 regulations define the competent authority for disciplinary action against scale ii officers. (Para 6) |
| 4. the court identifies the 1976 regulations as the governing statutory framework for disciplinary proceedings. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. an authority higher than the minimum prescribed rank is competent to impose major penalties. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. the court refuses to remand the case, opting to decide the legal question of competency itself. (Para 12) |
| 7. disciplinary order upheld as passed by a competent authority; petition dismissed. (Para 13 , 14) |
ORDER :
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs :-
i) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to produce the entire record/files pertaining to issuance of the impugned orders dated 25.2.2008 and 29.9.2010 (Annex.P/2 and P/4) for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
ii) That, this Hon'ble court may be pleased to quash the orders impugned dated 25.2.2008 and 29.9.2010 passed by the respondent no.1 and 2 respectively by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari.
iii) Any other relief/direction/order as deemed fit and proper looking to the present facts and circumstances of the case.
(iii-1) That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the subsequent impugned order dated 21.12.2010 (Annexure P/6) with a further direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for reinstatement keeping in view the revocation of suspension of employees of State Bank of India (Annexure 3 & P/3-1).
iv) Cost of the petition may also kindly be awarded in the favour of the petitioner.
2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the relief for quashing the order dated 25.2.2008, annexure P/2, has rendered infructuous because by this order the sanction for prosecution has been granted, but thereafter the petitioner has already been punished, thus the petition for quashing the order dated 25.2.2008 has rendered infructuous.
3. In regard to quashment of order dated 29.9.2010, i.e. the order of punishment, annexure P/4 and order dated 21.12.2010, annexure P/6, the petitioner has summarized his contention and made limited prayer to the extent of consideration of these orders on the question of competency of the authority. It is submitted that the petitioner is not pressing the petition, challenging the merits of the case, but it is being challenged only to the extent of competency of the authority who has inflicted the punishment on the petitioner.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that, as apparent from the order, annexure P/4 dated 29.9.2010, the petitioner has been inflicted major penalty of compulsory retirement by an incompetent authority, i.e. Assistant General Manager. It is submitted that competent authority is Zonal Manager or General Manager, who are scale VI Officers in the setup of the Bank. The petitioner being scale II Branch manager, the competent authority to pass an order of punishment is scale VI. The petitioner has relied on regulation namely Central Bank of India (Officers') Service Regulations 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1979 Regulations'). As per Regulation 7, Categorization of different posts is prescribed. According to it, different posts in the bank setup have been prescribed as Scale I to scale VII posts. It is submitted that Assistant General Managers, as per the category, is a scale V post, Joint General Managers/Deputy General Managers are scale VI posts and as such they are competent to inflict punishment on Branch Manager, which is scale II post. It is further submitted that as per Regulation No.5.25, powers have been conferred on the co
