AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J.
The appellant, working with the respondent bank, seeks to raise a plea of mandatory requirement to have a common enquiry officer for all the charged employees. In terms of the impugned order, dated 29.10.2014, of the learned single Judge, the writ petition was dismissed, where this plea is not even canvassed. A perusal of the affidavit in support of the writ petition shows that the only plea in this behalf is that there cannot be two enquiry officers and two enquiry reports, which may provide for different punishment with different magnitude.
There is no plea based on rule 68(6) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules 1992 (hereinafter called the rules), as is sought to be canvassed before us.
The sole plea before us is on the basis of the said rule, which reads as follows:
"68(6) Where two or more officers are concerned in a case, the authority competent to impose major penalty on all such officers may make an order directing that disciplinary proceedings against all of them may be taken in a common proceeding."
A perusal of the aforesaid rule shows that it is applicable to State Bank of India Officers and thus the plea of the respondent/bank is these rules have no application to the case of the appellant, who is not an officer.
It is further canvassed before us that the service terms and conditions of the appellant are governed by the memorandum of settlement, dated 10.04.2002, entered into between the employees and the Management.
Learned counsel for the appellant faced with this position, seeks to submit that if such a rule is applicable to officers, in the absence of any rule qua other employees, the same should be ipso facto applicable.
We are unable to accept the plea that a set of rules applicable to officers should also apply to other employees. The absence of such a rule in the memorandum of settlement shows that this rule is not something which is to apply to the category, in which the appellant falls.
There is also another aspect of the matter arising from the interpretation of rule 68(6), as the word used therein is "may" leaving it to the competent authority to make such an order, if considered appropriate. The word, "may" does not necessarily mean "shall", as is sought to be canvassed before us by the learned counsel for the appellant. This principle will depend on the context in which the word is used.
The other aspect which could be noticed is, in the meantime, the enquiry is concluded and report has been filed and copy sent to the appellant. Thus, no enquiry is pending as on date. The appellant being an office-bearer of the Union, is very well aware of the fact that the memorandum of settlement, dated 10.04.2002, would govern the terms and conditions of staff, including the appellant. The disciplinary proceedings have been initiated in terms of the memorandum of settlement.
As far as the issues arising from the manner in which the enquiry is conducted or whether the enquiry suffers from any infirmity, they cannot be subject-matter of challenge in the present proceedings and it is always open to the appellant, to assail the enquiry report and the punishment imposed, if any, in appropriate legal proceedings.
We may add that if there are any consequences flowing, which, according to the appellant, ought not to flow, in view of there being a cause for common enquiry against the workers, for which two enquiries were held, that also is an aspect for the appellant to challenge in the proceedings, if he opts to assail the enquiry report and the consequent punishment, if any, arising therefrom, as part of challenge to the enquiry report.
We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the learned single Judge. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P(MD) No. 2 of 2015 is closed.