Canara Bank Disciplinary Action: Supreme Court Clarifies Authority of Punishment
The case of Canara Bank & Ors. vs. Kameshwar Singh deals with a service matter regarding the validity of disciplinary proceedings in public sector banks. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether the General Manager of Canara Bank had the authority to impose a penalty on an employee when the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by a lower authority.
Background of the Case
Kameshwar Singh, the respondent, was employed with Canara Bank since 1978 and was working as a Scale I officer at the Swarajpuri Branch, Gaya, in Bihar when disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. On September 20, 2008, he was placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. Subsequently, a charge sheet was issued against him on February 14, 2009, alleging misconduct.
The disciplinary inquiry found him guilty, and on August 18, 2009, the General Manager of the bank imposed a penalty of compulsory retirement under the Canara Bank Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976.
Kameshwar Singh appealed the decision, but his appeal was rejected on March 22, 2010. His review petition was also dismissed on July 30, 2010. Following this, he approached the Patna High Court challenging the validity of the penalty imposed on him.
Arguments by the Petitioner (Canara Bank)
Canara Bank argued that the General Manager had the authority to impose penalties under Regulation 5(3) of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976. The bank’s counsel contended:
“The Disciplinary Authority or any other authority higher than it, may impose any of the penalties specified in Regulation 4 on any officer employee.”
The bank maintained that the punishment imposed by the General Manager was within the legal framework and that the High Court had wrongly interfered in the disciplinary proceedings.
Arguments by the Respondent (Kameshwar Singh)
Kameshwar Singh argued that his penalty was invalid because the proceedings were initiated by the Deputy General Manager (Disciplinary Authority), but the final penalty was imposed by the General Manager. He claimed:
“The General Manager could not have exercised the power of the Disciplinary Authority. The disciplinary proceedings were vitiated as the authority who imposed the punishment was different from the one who initiated the proceedings.”
He also alleged procedural irregularities, including a lack of due consideration of his defense.
High Court’s Observations
The Patna High Court held that the General Manager did not have the authority to impose the penalty and quashed the punishment order. The High Court directed the matter to be remitted to the Deputy General Manager to conduct a fresh inquiry from the stage of receiving the inquiry report.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court examined whether the General Manager had the authority under the bank’s regulations to impose a penalty on an employee. The Court referred to Regulation 5(3), which states:
“The Disciplinary Authority or any other authority higher than it, may impose any of the penalties specified in Regulation 4 on any officer employee.”
The Court held that:
“The Division Bench was not justified in holding that the General Manager has no authority to pass the order of punishment.”
The Court ruled that since the General Manager was a higher authority than the Disciplinary Authority, he had the power to impose penalties under the bank’s regulations.
Final Judgment
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the decision of the Single Judge, which had remitted the matter to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration of the appeal.
Implications of the Judgment
This judgment provides clarity on the authority of disciplinary actions in public sector banks:
- Higher authorities in the bank can impose penalties under Regulation 5(3).
- The authority initiating disciplinary proceedings and the authority imposing penalties can be different.
- Employees cannot challenge penalties on procedural technicalities if regulations explicitly allow such actions.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the authority of higher management in public sector banks to take disciplinary actions and clarifies the interpretation of the Canara Bank’s Discipline and Appeal Regulations. This ruling ensures that procedural technicalities do not hinder the enforcement of discipline in banking institutions.
Petitioner Name: Canara Bank & Ors..Respondent Name: Kameshwar Singh.Judgment By: Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice Sanjiv Khanna.Place Of Incident: Patna, Bihar.Judgment Date: 08-01-2020.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: Canara Bank & Ors. vs Kameshwar Singh Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 08-01-2020.pdf
Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment
See all petitions in Disciplinary Proceedings
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by S. Abdul Nazeer
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjiv Khanna
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments
See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
