Uco Bank & Ors vs Sushil Kumar Saha

3. The High Court, placing reliance on Regulations 5(1) and 6 of the UCO Bank (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 [for short ‘Regulations 1976’] read with Schedule thereto, took the view that it was only the Deputy General Manager (for short ‘DGM’) who had the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent and not the Assistant General Manager (for short ‘AGM’), as per the Schedule to Regulations 1976, since at the time of initiation of proceedings he was under the jurisdiction of the DGM. The High Court, therefore, set aside the entire disciplinary proceedings, including the charge-sheet, enquiry report, final order of punishment and the appellate order and directed the Bank to release all the admissible service benefits and pay admissible dues to the respondent. We are, in this case, concerned with the legality of the order of the High Court.

4. The Respondent joined the services of the Appellant UCO Bank (for short ‘Bank’) as the Field Officer on 11.11.1978. He was later promoted to the scale of MMGS-III on 17.7.2001. Respondent functioned as the Senior Manager in the Bansdroni Branch of the Bank from 15.10.2001 to 23.8.2005. Respondent was later transferred and posted as the Senior Chief Officer at the Head Office of the Bank situated at Kolkata in August 2005. It was then noticed that while the respondent was working as the Senior Manager at Bansdroni Branch, he had committed serious irregularities in sanctioning loan and had granted indiscriminate excess drawings and overdrawing facilities to various parties beyond his powers and without approval from the Controlling Office. Consequently, a show-cause-notice dated 23.3.2006 was issued by the Chief Officer, Regional Office, Kolkata. Respondent filed his reply to the said show-cause-notice on 17.4.2006. Being dissatisfied with the reply submitted by the respondent, the Bank issued a charge-sheet along with Statement of Allegations dated 15.12.2006 through the AGM (Disciplinary Authority) to hold a domestic enquiry against the respondent in terms of Regulation 6 of the Regulations 1976, levelling 7 charges which are extracted hereunder for easy reference:

6. AGM concurred with the findings of the Enquiring Officer in respect of the charges, including Charge No. 4, which the AGM found to be fully proved. A copy of the enquiry report was served on the respondent, to which he filed a detailed reply. AGM, after considering the reply submitted by the respondent, passed final order on 19.4.2008, in exercise of his powers conferred under Regulation 4 of the Regulations 1976 and imposed penalty of dismissal from service. Aggrieved by the said order of AGM, Respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, namely DGM, Personnel Services, Department, Head Office. Appellate authority dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 22.7.2008.

7. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, respondent filed a writ petition No. 1546 of 2008 before the High Court of Calcutta, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge of the High Court vide its judgment dated 19.11.2009. Appeal was preferred by the respondent to the Division Bench vide A.P.O. No. 342 of 2009 and the Bench vide its judgment dated 19.12.2011 allowed the appeal holding that AGM has no jurisdiction to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. The Division Bench also directed reinstatement of the respondent into service along with all consequential benefits, against which this appeal has been preferred by the Bank.

Accordingly, Personnel Department, Head Office proposes to issue a Circular which would be made effective from 16.8.2004, in compliance with the above directives of TMC, a copy of which is enclosed for kind perusal and approval.” (emphasis added)

21. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court has committed an error in quashing the proceedings initiated by the AGM (Disciplinary Authority) and the punishment imposed. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside.