N C PADMANABHAN Vs. BOARD OF DIRECTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner while serving as Branch Manager at Hyderabad was charged with misconduct under the service regulations. The charge memo issued to the petitioner on 3-7-1985 mentions three charges (i), (ii) and (iii). The Inquiring Authority appointed by the Managing Director conducted the departmental enquiry and submitted his report recording the finding that the charges (i) and (ii) are not proved and that only charge No.(iii) is proved. The Chief General Manager, after consideration of the findings recorded by the Inquiring authority and taking into account all the attending facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed before him concluded that the petitioner is guilty of the (iii) charge and the petitioner deserves deterrent action. However, taking lenient view of the matter and with a view to afford the delinquent-petitioner an opportunity for improving, the Chief General Manager imposed the penalty of reduction to lower stage in the time scale applicable to the petitioner i.e., Middle Management Grade Scale III by two stages fixing his basic pay at Rs.3,050.00. The petitioner's appeal and the review filed before the appellate authority and the reviewing authority under the regulations are also dismissed. When the review filed by the petitioner was pending before the reviewing authority, the instant writ petition was presented in this Court. After the rejection of the review by the reviewing authority on 5-12-1990, the petitioner filed WPMP to amend the writ petition so as to assail the validity of that order also.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend (i) that the punishment is imposed on the petitioner by an authority lower than the authority which appointed the petitioner to the M.M. Grade III scale and therefore the proceedings of the Chief General Manager dated 11/07/1988 should be held to be one without competence and authority; (ii) that the finding recorded by the Inquiring authority on charge No. (iii) is perverse and not based on 'acceptable evidence'; (iii) that non-furnishing of report of the Chief Vigilance Commissioner despite the request of the petitioner resulted in violation of principles of natural justice and caused prejudice to the petitioner; and (iv) that the management was represented by the Inspector of Police of CBI., well-versed in prosecution and on that count itself the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated. No other contention was urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy, the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank supported the disciplinary action.

(3.) Adverting to the first contention, the learned Counsel would elaborate and contend that the term 'appointing authority' is not defined under the regulations and in the absence of the definition of the term 'appointing authority' it should be held that the authority which appointed the petitioner to MM. Grade III should be treated as appointing authority as per the decision of the Division Bench of this Court handed down in W.PNo.7398/88 dated 20-12-1988, and if it is so held, the Managing Director of the Bank who promoted the petitioner to M.M. Grade II Scale should be treated as the 'appointing authority' for the purpose of imposing the major penalty on the petitioner, and if it is so held, the Chief General Manager who is admittedly an officer lower in rank to the Managing Director, is incompetent to impose the major penalty of reduction in rank. I do not find any substance in this contention. I say it, because, admittedly after the petitioner was promoted to M.M. Grade Scale III by the order of the Managing Director, there was amendment of the Regulations by virtue of which the Chief General Manager is designated as the appointing authority as well as the disciplinary authority as regards M.M. Grade Scale III officers. It is trite to state that by virtue of this amendment of the service regulations, the power of the Managing Director as the appointing authority is divested and that power is invested in the Chief General Manager. There is no controversy between the parties that as on 11-7-1998, the date on which the Chief General Manager passed the order imposing the penalty of reduction in rank against the petitioner, the Chief General Manager was the appointing authority as regards M.M. Grade Scale III officers. These facts are not in dispute. If that is so, the decisions of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. S. Vijaya Kumar, (1990) 4 SCC 481,; and Pyare Lal Sharma v. Managing Director, J & K Industries Ltd., AIR 1989 SC 1854, squarely cover the situation. The judgment of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. S. Vijaya Kumar (supra) is an authority to state that though an official of the batik was appointed by a different authority than the authority which passed the order imposing the penalty and if the authority which has passed the order imposing the penalty is the competent authority under the Regulations applicable on the date of the order, disciplinary action taken against the delinquent would not vitiate. The opinion handed down by the Supreme Court in Pyare Lal Sharma v. Managing Director, J&K Industries Ltd., (supra) also supports this view.