Allowed

State Bank of Mysore v. M N Kumbaiah S/O Narasimhaiah

Karnataka HC22 Nov 2012WA/16688/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal, the High Court set aside the Single Judge's order quashing an appellate authority's penalty. The Court distinguished S.C.Parashar, holding that specific bank regulations allowed multiple penalties. The Court also upheld the treatment of the interim period as deemed suspension to preserve the employee's benefits.

What did the court decide?

The Single Judge's order setting aside the penalty was set aside; the appellate authority's order restoring the reduced punishment and deemed suspension was validated.

State Bank of Mysore Vs M N Kumbaiah S/O Narasimhaiah — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

W.A.16688/2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO WRIT APPEAL No.16688 OF 2011 (S-DE)

¶9

BETWEEN :

¶10

STATE BANK OF MYSORE ITS HEAD OFFICE AT KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BANGALORE -560 009 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ( BY SRI KASTURI, Sr. COUNSEL FOR M/S. KASTURI ASSOCIATES )

¶11

...APPELLANT

¶12

AND :

¶13

SRI M N KUMBAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O NARASIMHAIAH WORKING AS ASSTISTANT MANAGER IN JUNIOR MANAGEMENT GRADE SCALE I AT STATE BANK OF MYSORE MAIN BRANCH, TUMKUR - 572 101 AND R/AT SRINIVASA NILAYA 4TH MAIN ROAD, SARADADEVINAGAR

¶14

¶15

W.A.16688/2011

¶16

OPP M.G. STADIUM TUMKUR - 572 103

¶17

...RESPONDENT

¶18

( BY SRI M N PRASANNA, ADV. FOR M/S. P.S. RAJGOPAL ASSOCIATES)

¶19

WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.12897/2006 (S-DE) DATED 03/08/2011.

¶20

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, N. KUMAR J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGEMENT

¶22

This appeal is filed challenging the order passed

¶23

by the learned Single Judge who held, the appellate authority should not have imposed an amalgam of major and minor penalties and also it should not have treated the period from the date of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority till it was modified by the appellate authority as a period of suspension.

¶24

¶25

W.A.16688/2011

¶26

For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the writ petition. The petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the respondent-Bank in the year 1981. Subsequently he was granted promotion. When he was working as a Manager in the bank at Madhugiri branch in the year 2002, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on the ground that there were several irregularities in his functioning as such manager. A charge sheet was issued, petitioner filed his reply, enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer submitted a report holding that all the charges levelled against him, are proved. Thereafter the disciplinary authority issued a second show-cause notice enclosing a copy of the report. After hearing his say, accepted the report of the enquiry officer and imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred

¶27

¶28

W.A.16688/2011

¶29

the statutory appeal to the appellate authority. The appellate authority affirmed the finding of misconduct but interfered with the punishment. Instead of compulsory retirement, the appellate authority substituted the following punishment:

¶30

(a) Reduction to a lower grade by one stage to Junior Management Grade Scale – 1 at the basic pay of Rs.10,940/-;

¶31

(b) Withholding of promotion for next five years from the date of his eligibility;

¶32

(c) Period between date of compulsory retirement and date of reporting for duty by the charge-sheeted official shall be treated as deemed suspension.

¶33

The said order of the appellate authority was challenged by the petitioner by preferring a writ petition in W.P.No.12897/06. The contention was, the appellate authority could not have passed punishment

¶34

¶35

W.A.16688/2011

¶36

which is amalgam of major and minor penalties in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S.C.PARASHAR . Accepting the said contention, the learned Single Judge set aside the punishment imposed by the appellate authority, but however held, the appellate authority is entitled to impose one penalty. Discretion was given to the appellate authority to impose major penalty or minor penalty and for that purpose the matter was remanded to the appellate authority. Aggrieved by the said order, the Bank is before this court.

¶37

Learned Sr.Counsel appearing for the appellant-respondent, assailing the impugned order contends, in the judgment of the Apex Court on which reliance is placed, the relevant Rule provided that the disciplinary authority may impose following penalties and they had stipulated what are the minor penalties

¶38

¶39

W.A.16688/2011

¶40

and major penalties. It is in that context the Apex Court held, the Rule does not provide for imposition of more than one penalty and that too one major penalty and one minor penalty and therefore the said order imposing penalty was set aside. But in the instant case, the relevant Regulation or Rule specifically provides that the disciplinary authority may impose any one or more of the penalties and therefore the said judgment has no application. This is missed by the learned Single Judge.

¶41

Per contra, learned Counsel for the petitioner though fairly admitted the difference in the language in the two Rules, submitted what the Supreme Court has laid down is, the disciplinary authority cannot impose amalgam of penalties and in that view of the matter, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is justified. He also contended, once the appellate

¶42

¶43

W.A.16688/2011

¶44

authority modified the penalty, it had no jurisdiction to treat the period from the date the disciplinary authority imposes penalty till the date the appellate authority modified the same as suspension and therefore the learned Single Judge has set aside the said penalty also.

¶45

The Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA & ANR. VS. S.C.PARASHAR , reported in 2006 (3) SCC

¶46

167 , interpreted the terms of Rule No.11 as contained in the CCS Rules. The said Rule reads as under:

¶47

“ The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a government servant, namely:

¶48

The Rules sets out what are the minor penalties and what are the major penalties”.

¶49

¶50

W.A.16688/2011

¶51

Thereafter it proceeded to hold, the penalty imposed upon the respondent is an amalgam of minor penalty and major penalty. The respondent has been inflicted with three penalties. The said Rule do not provide for imposing of more than one penalty. Therefore they were of the view that the order imposing the penalty was illegal and without jurisdiction, as both minor and major penalties could not have been imposed by the same order.

¶52

However in the present case, the relevant rule reads as under:

¶53

“ Without prejudice to any other provisions contained in these regulations, any one or more of the following penalties may be imposed on any officer, for an act of misconduct or for any other good and sufficient reason.

¶54

Thereafter minor penalties and major penalties are set out”.

¶55

¶56

W.A.16688/2011

¶57

Therefore when the Rules specifically

¶58

provides for imposing of one or more of the following penalties which includes major and minor penalties, it cannot be said that the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to impose more than one penalty. If the appellate authority can impose more than one major penalty, the argument that one major and minor penalty cannot be imposed, cannot be accepted. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge has failed to see the difference in the language in these Rules and committed an error. Therefore the said order cannot be sustained and accordingly it is hereby set aside.

¶59

When the appellate authority modified the order of punishment on 2/9/2005, the question would arise, what should be the position from the day he

¶60

¶61

W.A.16688/2011

¶62

was compulsorily retired from service, till the said punishment was modified. It is in that context, they made it clear that the said period should be treated as period of suspension, so that the appellant would have the benefit of the subsisting allowance during the said period. If the petitioner does not want the said benefit, he can forego the same. In fact that order is in favour of the petitioner and therefore we do not see any justification to interfere in such a just order. For the aforesaid reasons, we pass the following:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

Appeal is allowed.

¶65

The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside. The order passed by the appellate authority is restored.

¶66

W.A.16688/2011

¶67

¶68

Parties to bear their own costs.

I.A.2/12 dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE

SD/-

JUDGE

Rd/-

State Bank of Mysore v. M N Kumbaiah S/O Narasimhaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of Mysore v. M N Kumbaiah S/O Narasimhaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Bibi Vs State of Karnataka

Shri P M Parameshwaramurthy Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Narayanamma Vs State of Karnataka

B T Raghuramareddy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. B. Ashwathaiya, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri T K Chandrashekar Rao S/O T.Krishna Rao, Vs the State of Karnataka