Disciplinary Proceedings and Legal Aspects

Disciplinary Proceedings and Legal Aspects

Introduction

Employees and employer in India are connected with each other through Contract. 

There are constitutional provisions which deal with issues related to employees.

For public sector banks, there are separate Acts and Rules/ Regulations made thereunder which often deal with manner of taking disciplinary action against the employees. There have been lot of legal issues on which the Apex Court has laid down the law. 

A.311 (2) of Constitution of India says "No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges". A.309 says "Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Acts of the appropriate Legislature may regulate the recruitment, and conditions of service of persons appointed, to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State". A.311 (1) says "No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed."

 

"Extended Period of Service"

In the case of SBI v. Navin Kumar Sinha [2024] GCtR 2947 (SC)  it was held that a conjoint reading of the three clauses of Order 19 of State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979  would indicate that an officer of SBI shall retire from the service of the said bank on fulfilment of either of the three conditions. However, the competent authority has the discretion to extend the period of service of such an officer, if such extension is deemed desirable in the interest of SBI though the extended period of service will not be counted for the purpose of pension.

"Chargesheet After the Retirement"

A three-Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Canara Bank Vs. D.R.P. Sundharam [2016] GCtR 6035 (SC) examined the meaning and effect of Regulation 20(3)(iii) of the Canara Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979 which is pari materia to Regulation 20(3)(iii) of the UCO Bank Officer Employees’ Services Regulations, 1979 in the light of the view taken in earlier decision and held that Regulation 20(3)(iii) is a stand-alone provision. By virtue of the said provision, a disciplinary proceeding initiated by means of a chargesheet prior to the retirement of a bank employee would continue even after his retirement in view of the provision contained in Regulation 20(3)(iii). In the facts of that case, the Bench noted that disciplinary proceeding was initiated by submission of chargesheet after the retirement of the respondent. 

"Initiation of Disciplinary Proceedings"

An important issue was considered in 2007 by Bench of Hon'ble J. S.B. Sinha and Hon'ble J. Markandey Katju. Hon'ble J. Katju was originally from Allahabad High Court. Hon'ble J. S.B. Sinha was originally from Patna High Court and he was a  HC Judge for more than 15 years for 4 different High Courts. Hon'ble J. Katju had remained a HC Judge for more than 14 years. 

In Coal India Ltd. Vs. Saroj Kumar Mishra [2007] GCtR 6036 (SC), Court again reiterated the legal position that a departmental proceeding is ordinarily said to be initiated only when a chargesheet is issued. It was held in that case that "although an employee of a State is not entitled to promotion to a higher post as a matter of right, he is entitled to be considered therefor in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. A right of promotion can be withheld or kept in abeyance only in terms of valid rules. Rules operating in the field do not provide that only because some allegations have been made as against an officer of the company, the same would itself justify keeping a valuable right to be considered for promotion of an employee in abeyance. When a question of that nature comes up for consideration before a superior court, the extant rules operating in the field must necessarily be construed in the light of the constitutional scheme of equality."

"Show Cause Notice and Its Effect"

Hon'ble J. Rajesh Bindal wrote a brilliant Judgment in 2023 on the issue of show cause notice. 

In the case of UCO Bank v. M.B. Motwani [2023] GCtR 2457 (SC), Supreme Court once again reiterated the position that a departmental proceeding is not initiated merely on issuance of a show cause notice. It is initiated only when a chargesheet is issued because that is the date of application of mind on the allegations levelled against an employee by the competent authority. In that case, it was noticed that the deceased employee had attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.1991 whereas the chargesheet was issued to him on 07.12.1991 meaning thereby that on the date of his superannuation, no disciplinary proceeding was pending against him. That being the position, this Court dismissed the appeal filed by UCO Bank. Employee in that case was an AGM at Bombay office of the Bank and the bank had directed him to face disciplinary proceedings.