Supreme Court clarifies the power of higher authorities in disciplinary matters: Canara Bank vs. Kameshwar Singh (2020)

Date of the Judgment: 08 January 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 18

Judges: S. Abdul Nazeer, J. and Sanjiv Khanna, J.

Can a disciplinary authority’s order be overturned simply because a higher authority issued the punishment? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving Canara Bank. The core issue was whether a General Manager, being higher in rank than the designated Disciplinary Authority, could impose a penalty of compulsory retirement on an employee. This judgment clarifies the scope of disciplinary powers within the bank’s regulations. The bench comprised Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna, with the majority opinion authored by Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.

Case Background

Kameshwar Singh was appointed as a Clerk at Canara Bank in 1978 and was later promoted to Scale I officer. On 08 August 2008, he was working at the Swarajpuri, Gaya Branch when he was suspended on 20 September 2008, pending departmental proceedings. A chargesheet was issued on 14 February 2009, alleging misconduct. Singh denied the allegations on 10 March 2009, requesting the proceedings be dropped and his suspension revoked. The bank proceeded with the inquiry, appointing a Senior Manager as the Inquiring Authority and a Manager as the Presenting Officer. Singh nominated a defence representative, and a departmental inquiry was conducted with witness testimonies and documentary evidence.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Inquiring Officer found Singh guilty on 02 July 2009. The Deputy General Manager, as the Disciplinary Authority, forwarded the report to Singh, who then submitted his representation. The General Manager, however, passed an order on 18 August 2009, imposing compulsory retirement under Regulation 4(h) of the Canara Bank Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. The Appellate Authority dismissed Singh’s appeal on 22 March 2010, and the Reviewing Authority rejected his review application on 30 July 2010. Singh then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Patna. The Single Judge remitted the matter to the Appellate Authority, stating that the Appellate and Reviewing Authorities had failed to address the grounds raised by Singh. The Division Bench of the High Court, however, set aside the Single Judge’s order, remitting the matter to the Deputy General Manager to proceed from the stage of the inquiry report. The Division Bench held that the General Manager, being a higher authority, could not exercise the power of the Disciplinary Authority.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined Regulation 5 of the Canara Bank Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, which governs the authority to institute disciplinary proceedings and impose penalties. Regulation 5(3) 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.”

This regulation allows either the Disciplinary Authority or a higher authority to impose penalties. The court noted that the departmental proceedings were initiated by the Deputy General Manager, the Disciplinary Authority, but the punishment was imposed by the General Manager, who was higher in rank.

Arguments

The arguments in this case revolved around the interpretation of Regulation 5(3) of the Canara Bank Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. The core dispute was whether the General Manager, being a higher authority than the Deputy General Manager (the Disciplinary Authority), had the power to impose the penalty of compulsory retirement.

Submissions on behalf of the Bank:

• The bank argued that Regulation 5(3) explicitly allows a higher authority to impose penalties.
• The General Manager, being higher than the Disciplinary Authority, was therefore competent to impose the penalty.
• The bank contended that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in holding that the General Manager lacked the authority to pass the order of punishment.

Submissions on behalf of Kameshwar Singh:

• The respondent argued that the Disciplinary Authority should be the one to impose the penalty.
• The respondent contended that the General Manager, being a higher authority, could not exercise the power of the Disciplinary Authority.
• The respondent relied on the reasoning of the Division Bench of the High Court, which had set aside the order of the Single Judge.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in holding that the General Manager, being an authority higher than the Disciplinary Authority, could not exercise the power of the Disciplinary Authority and impose the penalty.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court primarily relied on the following legal provision:

• Regulation 5(3) of the Canara Bank Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976: This regulation explicitly states that the Disciplinary Authority or any authority higher than it may impose penalties.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Regulation 5(3) of the Canara Bank Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976: The Court followed the plain language of the regulation, stating that it clearly permits a higher authority to impose penalties.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the explicit wording of Regulation 5(3) of the Canara Bank Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. The Court emphasized that the regulation clearly states that a disciplinary authority or any authority higher than it, may impose penalties. This direct interpretation of the legal provision was the predominant factor in the Court’s reasoning. The Court’s reasoning focused on the plain and unambiguous language of the regulation, indicating a strong adherence to the textual interpretation of the law. The court did not delve into any other aspect of the case, as the provision was clear.

Logical Reasoning:

The court’s reasoning was straightforward and based on the plain reading of the regulation. There were no alternative interpretations considered, as the court found the language of the regulation to be clear and unambiguous. The court did not find any ambiguity in the provision. The decision was reached by applying the literal rule of interpretation to the legal provision.

The Supreme Court stated:

“It is clear from the aforesaid Regulation 5(3) that the Disciplinary Authority or any other authority higher than it, may impose any penalties specified in Regulation 4 on any officer employee.”

“Having regard to Regulation 5(3), the Division Bench was not justified in holding that General manager has no authority to pass the order of punishment.”

“In the result, the appeals succeed and are accordingly allowed. The order of the Division Bench impugned herein is set aside and the order of the learned Single Judge remitting the matter to the authorised Appellate Authority for reconsideration of the appeal is restored.”

Key Takeaways

• A higher authority can impose penalties in disciplinary proceedings if the relevant regulations permit it.
• The plain language of regulations should be followed in interpreting disciplinary rules.
• The order of the Division Bench of the High Court was set aside, and the order of the Single Judge was restored.
• The matter was remitted to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration of the appeal.

Directions

The Supreme Court restored the order of the Single Judge, remitting the matter to the authorized Appellate Authority for reconsideration of the appeal. The parties were directed to bear their respective costs.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a higher authority can impose penalties in disciplinary proceedings if the relevant regulations explicitly permit it. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Regulation 5(3) of the Canara Bank Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, and reinforces the principle that the plain language of the regulations should be followed. There was no change in the previous position of law. The court merely clarified the existing provision.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the General Manager of Canara Bank, being a higher authority than the Disciplinary Authority, was competent to impose the penalty of compulsory retirement on Kameshwar Singh. The Court emphasized that Regulation 5(3) of the Canara Bank Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, explicitly allows a higher authority to impose penalties. The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench’s order and restored the Single Judge’s order, remitting the matter to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration.

Category:

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Category: Disciplinary Proceedings

Parent Category: Canara Bank Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976

Child Category: Regulation 5(3), Canara Bank Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976

FAQ

Q: Can a higher authority impose penalties in disciplinary proceedings?

A: Yes, if the relevant service regulations permit it, as clarified by the Supreme Court in this case.

Q: What was the main issue in this case?

A: The main issue was whether the General Manager of Canara Bank, being a higher authority, could impose a penalty when the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the Deputy General Manager.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?

A: The Supreme Court held that the General Manager was authorized to impose the penalty because Regulation 5(3) of the Canara Bank Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, allows a higher authority to do so.

Q: What is the significance of Regulation 5(3)?

A: Regulation 5(3) of the Canara Bank Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, states that the Disciplinary Authority or any authority higher than it, may impose penalties. This provision was central to the Supreme Court’s decision.

Q: What does this mean for employees facing disciplinary action?

A: This means that a higher authority can impose penalties if the service regulations allow it. Employees should be aware of the specific regulations governing their employment.