DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is employed as officer in the respondent Bank of India and, at the relevant time, was posted at Guna. By order passed on 19.2.1987, which was modified by order dated 7.8.1987, he was placed under suspension, firstly, in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings against him and thereafter also because of the institution of a criminal case against him in a Special Court under the prevention of Corruption of Act and under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) HE challenged the orders suspending him by Writ Petition No. 521 of 1992 which has been decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court by order under appeal dated 21.10. 1994. The learned Single Judge rejected all the contentions advanced against the validity of orders of suspension, by the appellant. The only relief granted to him was a direction issued to the Bank to review the order of suspension in the light of the guidelines issued by the Bank and because of the fact that the suspension period has been unduly long.

(3.) THE first contention advanced is that the suspension order passed on 19.2.1987 has been passed by the Officiating Regional Manager who is not "the Competent Authority" as prescribed under the Bank of India Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, framed under section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations" and the "Act" respectively. In support of the above contention the learned counsel invited attention of this Court to the definitions of "Competent Authority" and "Disciplinary Authority" under Regulation 3 (1) and 3 (g) respectively. The "Competent Authority" has been defined to mean the authority appointed by the Board for the purposes of the Regulations. The "Disciplinary Authority" has been defined to be the authority specified in the Scheduled to the Regulations which is competent to impose on an officer employee any of the penalties specified in the Regulations. A distinction is sought to be pointed out that "Disciplinary Authority" is different from "Competent Authority" and the order of suspension can be passed only by the Competent Authority as provided in Regulation 12(1) of the Regulations. The learned counsel has elucidated his above contention on the competence of Officiating Regional Manager to pass the order of suspension by referring to the Schedule to the Regulations which was brought into force with effect from 1.7.1982. In Col. 3 of the said Schedule, for Officers in Scale I, working at the Branches, the 'Disciplinary Authority' and the 'Competent Authority' under Regulation 3 (g) and 3 (1) and 12 has been shown as 'Regional Manager incharge of the concerned Region.' It is then pointed out that the above Schedule was superseded by the Branch Circular No. 8 1/273, dated 7th October, 1987 (marked as Annexure P/25 with the main Petition) and in the proper column of the Schedule for Officers in Scale I, the 'Competent Authority' and 'Disciplinary Authority' have now been described as only 'Regional Manager' instead of 'Regional Manager in -charge of the concerned Region.' Two argument built by reading the above two circulars is that the Officiating Regional Manager was not the Competent Authority and could not have passed the impugned orders of suspension. In place of the above Circular, reliance is placed on a document at page 50 of the Paper Book which shows that for all Officers Employees, the Competent Authority prescribed is General Manager or any other Executive appointed by the Board. It is contended that it is only the Regional Manager or any other Executive appointed by the Board which alone could have placed the appellant under suspension. The order of the learned Single judge is criticised by submitting that the circulars above -mentioned have been misinterpreted and the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the following Note below the Circular dated 7.10:1987 (at p. 63 of the Paper Book). The relevant Note reads as under: