AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Deepak Khot, J
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.
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.
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.
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 competent authority to sanction different allowances to the employees of the Bank, i.e. increment, stagnation increments and professional qualification allowance. In the said category, it is submitted that the Zonal managers Scale I, which are equivalent to Deputy General Managers or above, are competent to grant sanction of allowances to the Officers mentioned in the category, thus they are competent to inflict penalty.
It is further submitted that in an identical matter in respect of other employee of the Bank equivalent to the petitioner, punishment has been inflicted by the Zonal Manager, for which I.A.No.2608/2022 has been filed with the order of punishment of such an employee. It is further submitted that vide annexure P-2 dated 25.2.2008, the Zonal Manager holding himself to be the competent to inflict punishment, has granted sanction of prosecution against the petitioner. On the basis of aforesaid fact, it has been prayed that as the order of punishment has been passed by the incompetent authority, it deserves to be quashed.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the disciplinary action against the bank employee is governed by regulations, namely Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1976 Regulations'). It is submitted that as per the schedule appended to the 1976 Regulations, Chief Manager/Regional Manager (Scale IV) is the competent authority to inflict punishment on scale II Branch Manager. Even the competent authority is defined as Regional Manager/Chief Manager for the officers who are below the rank of the said authority. It is submitted that impugned order of punishment has been passed by the AGM scale V, who is higher than scale IV, thus, competent to inflict punishment on the petitioner and on the basis prayed for maintaining the order passed by the disciplinary authority by dismissing the petition.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The only question which has been raised by the petitioner in this petition during the course of arguments is the competency of the disciplinary authority by whom the punishment has been inflicted on the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has been inflicted the punishment of compulsory retirement by an incompetent authority. It is further submitted that the penalty of compulsory retirement has been inflicted upon the petitioner by the AGM, though it is a scale V post, but is incompetent as per the 1979 Regulations.
For the purpose of inflicting punishment and regulating the process of departmental enquiry and appeal, Regulations namely Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, have been framed in exercise of powers conferred by section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970, and is thus having the statutory force. As per clause 2 of the 1976 Regulations, the Regulations shall apply to all officer employees of the bank. The penalties have been categorized as minor and major penalties, which are provided in clause 4 of the 1976 Regulations, according to which clause 4(h) is the punishment of compulsory retirement, which is a major penalty. Clause 5 of the 1976 Regulations provides for the authority to institute disciplinary proceedings and impose penalties. Sub Clause (3) of clause 5 of the Regulation provides that 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 'Disciplinary Authority' is defined in definition clause 3(g) of the 1976 Regulations, which means the authority specified in the Schedule is competent to impose any of the penalties specified in Regulation 4 upon an officer/employee. The schedule appended to the Regulation provides disciplinary authority who is any Officer of the Bank, not lower in rank and status than a Chief Manager/Regional Manager (Scale IV), shall be competent to act as the Disciplinary Authority under these Regulations, in regard to disciplinary proceedings against any officer employee lower in rank and status than it.
Admittedly, the petitioner is a scale II officer of the Bank and thus on applying this schedule for the purpose of competency for inflicting punishment, it is found that a scale IV officer is competent to inflict punishment on an officer or employee below the rank of scale IV. It is apparent from the impugned order that the punishment has been inflicted by the Assistant General Manager. As per 1979 Regulations, categorization of officers is prescribed according to which Assistant General Manager is scale V post, which is higher than the scale IV post. According to schedule, any Officer on scale IV post is competent to inflict punishment on the officer/employee below than a scale IV post. Thus, it is clear that the punishment order has been passed by an authority who was higher than a scale IV post. Regulation 5(3) of the 1976 Regulations provides that the disciplinary authority or any authority higher than it, may impose any of the penalties specified in Regulation 4, which also makes it clear that the punishment order which has been inflicted upon the petitioner is by an authority higher than scale IV post, which is competent under Regulation 5(3) of the 1976 Regulations.
As submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, that as per clause 5.25 of the 1979 Regulations, the competent authority to sanction increment and allowances has been provided according to which scale I officer is the Regional Manager for the purposes of branches. But, it is found by this Court that such Regulation does not specifically deals with the cases of punishment, but only in respect of sanction of increments and allowances. The regulation which governs the field are the 1976 Regulations, which clearly provides the procedure of punishment and the authorities competent to inflict punishment. Thus, according to the said Regulations, the punishment which has been imposed upon the petitioner is by an officer who was above the officer competent to inflict such punishment.
The petitioner has also submitted that the appellate authority in the appeal, though has reduced the ground of appeal in writing in the order passed by the Appellate Authority, but has not discussed the competency of the authority, thus has committed illegality, which requires interference by this Court by remanding the matter to the competent authority. But, as the matter has been decided by this Court in respect of competency of the authority, which is purely a legal question, this court is not inclined to remand the matter to the appellate authority to decide it on the question of competency.
As no other ground has been raised during the course of arguments by the petitioner and restricted his argument to the prayer of competency of officer who has passed the impugned order, the impugned order, on the above analysis, could not pass the judicial scrutiny of this court. When the case of the petitioner has been tested on the anvil of the 1976 Regulations which are applicable in the matter, the impugned order has been found to be passed by the competent authority. Thus, the petitioner could not make out any case for quashment of the impugned order.
The petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.