CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. C BERNARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question which arises in this appeal by special leave is whether the departmental enquiry entrusted to and conducted by a bank official stands vitiated if the said official proceeds with the enquiry and concludes the same after his superannuation during the pendency of the enquiry The High court of Karnataka has held that such an enquiry is incompetent and without jurisdiction and, therefore, null and void. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as under: The respondent C. Bernard while serving as a Relieving Head Cashier in the K. G. Road Branch of the Bank in Bangalore city availed of 15 days leave from 17/04/197 8/05/1978 and was allowed an advance of Rs. 2,500. 00 on 1/04/1978 under LFC to be adjusted later on his submitting the LFC bill. He submitted a bill for Rs. 2,800. 00 on 5/05/1978 along with a stamped cash receipt purported to have been issued by M/s Shri Manju Travels of Bangalore and claimed reimbursement for the same. The said bill was passed by the bank on 15/05/1978 but subsequent investigations revealed that the firm of M/s Shri Manju Travels was a spurious one which indulged in issuing fake travel receipts. Thereupon the respondent was served with a memo dated 1/08/1978 by the Divisional Office of the Bank calling for his explanation. A letter was also addressed on the same day to M/s Shri Manju Travels, Bangalore requesting them to furnish the details of the persons who travelled and the amounts received by the said firm. No reply was received from the said firm but the respondent sent a reply on 10/08/1978 which was not found to be satisfactory. Some correspondence ensued between the respondent and the appellant in this connection but finally the respondent was served with the charge-sheet dated 12/10/1978 which was followed by a departmental enquiry. It is not necessary to go into the details in regard to proceedings at the departmental enquiry but it would be sufficient to state that the respondent participated in the departmental enquiry till it was completed by the enquiry officer Shri U. B. Menon.

(2.) Paragraph 9.14 of the Memorandum of Bi-partite Settlement dated 19/10/1966 empowers the Chief Executive Officer, etc. of the Bank to decide which officer (s) would be empowered to hold enquiry and take disciplinary action in the case of each office or establishment, Accordingly Shri U. B. Menon, Special Officer, was appointed an Enquiry Officer under the Chief Executive Officer's Order dated 9/01/1979, which reads as under :

(3.) A learned Single Judge of the High court by his order dated 18/01/1988 came to the conclusion that on the retirement of Shri U. B. Menon 'he was nobody in the hierarchy of authorities' to impose punishment on the respondent and hence the order imposing punishment was clearly incompetent and without jurisdiction. The argument that since the impugned order of discharge got merged in the appellate order, the initial defect, if any, stood removed, was repelled by the learned Judge on the ground that 'as the original order was without jurisdiction or competence, there was nothing for the Appellate Authority to confirm'. The learned Single Judge, therefore, allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order of punishment and directed that the respondent be paid all consequential benefits. The appellant preferred a letters patent appeal against the said order of the learned Single Judge. The division bench of the High court which heard the appeal dismissed it by a one line order : 'no ground for interference is made out'. It is against this order that the appellant has approached this court under Article 136 of the Constitution.