Sri Sushil Kumar Saha vs UCO Bank and Others

The appellant/writ petitioner was a Senior Manager, Bansdroni Branch of UCO Bank. In August 2005 he was posted in the Head Office as Deputy Chief Officer. While posted in head office, he was served with a charge sheet dated 15th December, 2006, issued by Assistant General Manager describing himself as Disciplinary Authority. On conclusion of the enquiry, enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer holding allegation nos. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 as proved and allegation nos. 4 and 5 as partly proved. The Assistant General Manager as the Disciplinary authority disagreed with some of the findings and by a letter dated 18th March, 2008, asked the appellant/writ petitioner to make his representation against enquiry report as well as note of dissent. Representation, as called for, was submitted by the appellant. Final order of dismissal was passed on 19th April, 2008 by the Assistant General Manager as Disciplinary authority holding all charges as proved. An appeal was filed against the order of dismissal but the Appellate authority being the General Manager (Personnel Services), by the order dated 22nd July, 2008 upheld the penalties imposed by the order dated 19th April, 2008 passed by the Assistant General Manager.

The basic and fundamental issue raised on behalf of the appellant by the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Ashok De, is about the competence of the Assistant General Manager of the Bank to act as the disciplinary authority right from the stage of issuance of the charge sheet till passing of the final order. Mr. De placed reliance on Regulations 5(1) and 6 of UCO Bank (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 read with Schedule thereto. It was contended that the Deputy General Manager is the appropriate Disciplinary Authority.

The appellant herein specifically challenged the Circular dated 11th August, 2004, issued by the General Manager (Personnel Services) of the respondent bank. The aforesaid Circular provides for initiation of Disciplinary proceedings by the erstwhile Disciplinary authority on the basis of the earlier place of posting, where the alleged misconduct occurred, irrespective of whether the Disciplinary Authority at the new place of posting is different as per Rules or not. Since the Disciplinary proceedings in this case was initiated and concluded by the Assistant General Manager and not by the Deputy General Manager, though the later is specified as Disciplinary authority in the schedule to the said (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, specific prayer has been made on behalf of the appellant for quashing of the entire proceedings.

Mr. L.K. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent Bank, relies upon Regulation 3(g) and Regulation 5(1) of the said (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations. Regulation 5(1) permits any authority empowered by the Managing Director or Executive Director to act as Disciplinary authority. Mr. Gupta submits that it is not essential that the Disciplinary authority prescribed in the Schedule to the Regulations only will have to hold the disciplinary proceedings. Mr. Gupta relies on the note to Chairman and Managing Director dated 3rd August, 2004 on the basis of Top Management Committee Resolution dated 26th June, 2004, which was subsequently approved by the Chairman and Managing Director. Thus, according to bank, the Assistant General Manager was the appropriate Disciplinary authority in the case of the appellant, since the allegations in the charge sheet are all in respect of incidents at Bansdroni Branch of the Bank where he was posted as Senior Manager.

The appellant herein disclosed certain additional documents by filing a supplementary affidavit which have been subsequently included in the supplementary paper book. From the aforesaid documents it appears that appellant had applied for some information under the RTI Act before the Bank on 22nd March, 2011. The information asked for and furnished by the respondent Bank are mentioned hereinbelow:

The informations furnished include the minutes of the Top Management Committee held on 26th June, 2004 which is referred to in the Bank''s note to Chairman and Managing Director dated 3rd August, 2004 mentioned above, authorising the Assistant General Manager to act as Disciplinary authority. The aforesaid document dated 3rd August, 2004 is the sheet anchor of the Bank''s stand as clothing the Assistant General Manager with the power to act as Disciplinary authority in respect of the appellant. The aforesaid document stated by the Bank to be based on the Top Management Committee minutes dated 26th June, 2004.

From the said minutes, however, it does not appear that there was any agenda, discussion or decision in respect of the delegation of authority upon the Assistant General Manager to act as Disciplinary authority in the facts situation arising out of transfer of the appellant from Branch to Head Office. Hence, the said document dated 3rd August, 2004, has no basis, and the Assistant General Manager could not lawfully act as the Disciplinary Authority when as per the schedule to the said (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations the Deputy General Manager is the appropriate Disciplinary Authority.

The entire disciplinary proceedings starting from charge sheet till the final order of dismissal are, therefore, totally without jurisdiction, and the stand taken by the bank being based on the minutes of the Top Management Committee meeting and the document dated 3rd August, 2004, has no merit. Accordingly, the circular dated 11th August, 2004 and the note to the Chairman and Managing Director dated 3rd August, 2004 are hereby quashed.

The proceeding being without jurisdiction, the appellate order cannot have any independent existence in law. Accordingly, the entire Disciplinary proceedings including charge sheet, enquiry report, final order of punishment and the appellate order are not sustainable and hence set aside.

The appellant shall be reinstated forthwith if he has not attained the age of superannuation and he should also be given all consequential benefits by treating him in continuous service and on the footing that he was never subjected to the said disciplinary proceedings.

The respondent Bank is directed to release all the admissible service benefits and pay admissible dues to the appellant without any further delay, but positively on or before 29th February, 2012.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this appeal stands disposed of.

In the facts of the present case, there will, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.