S VASUNDARA Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These special leave petitions have been filed against the order of the division bench of the Madras High court made on 9/9/1996 in Writ Petitions Nos. 17011 of 1994 and 9851 of 1987

(2.) The admitted facts are that the petitioner, while working as a Manager of the respondent-Bank, was charged on 3/11/1986 for an offence punishable under S. 420, 467, 471, 477 Indian Penal Code read with Section 5 (1 (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short "the Act"). The trial court convicted the petitioner for an offence under S. 420 and 477-A Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (2 read with 5 (1 (d) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo one year imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs. 3,000. 00 on each of the counts. On appeal, the High court suspended the sentence on 15/9/1987 and enlarged the petitioner on bail. The respondents had issued a show-cause notice pending trial to the petitioner on 24/9/1987. The petitioner challengedthe same which was subsequently withdrawn. After the conviction, they issued another notice to the petitioner on 12/9/1994. The petitioner challenged the show-cause notice in the above writ petition. The High court in the impugned order dismissed the same. Shri Sampath, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the conviction on the basis of a criminal charge is not one of the specified enumerated mis-conducts. Removal does not lead the conviction due to the misconduct under the Regulation. Therefore, Regulations 6, 7 and 8 would not apply to the facts in this case. Consequently, Regulation 11 of the Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations does not get attracted. The action taken, therefore, is without jurisdiction. We find no force in the contention. It is true that the High court had suspended the operation of the judgment but nonetheless the conviction recorded by the trial court cannot be obliterated. It is still a conviction but only redemption is that by operation of the suspension, the petitioner is not required to undergo the sentence pending appeal in the High court. Regulation 11 reads as under:

(3.) The respondents have specifically stated that on account of the conviction by the criminal court on a criminal charge, the action is sought to be taken for taking action under the Regulations. The non obstante clause engrafted in Regulation 11 takes out the necessity to follow the procedure prescribed in Regulation 6, 7 or 8, as the case may be, by excluding the operation of Regulations 6, 7 and 8. The authority is empowered to take action against the delinquent employee for imposition of any of the penalties specified in Regulation 4. Only in two cases. Regulation 11 could be invoked, namely, conviction on a criminal charge or on the strength of facts or conclusions arrived at by a judicial trial. In view of the fact that criminal court had recorded the conviction of the appellant for offences under S. 420, 477-A and 5 (2 read with Section 5 (1 (d) of the Act. The invocation of Regulation 11 stands applicable