Supreme Court: Confession Without Corroboration Cannot Form the Basis of Conviction  ||  SC: Higher Land Acquisition Compensation to Some Owners Cannot Invalidate Awards to Others  ||  SC: Prior Written Demand is Not Mandatory For an Industrial Dispute to Exist or be Referred  ||  SC: Complaint U/S 175(4) BNSS Against a Public Servant Must Meet the Conditions of Section 175(3)  ||  P&H HC: Customary Restrictions Can't Stop Widow From Alienating Non-Ancestral Property  ||  Delhi High Court: SC's 'Mihir Rajesh Shah' Directive on Written Arrest Grounds Applies Prospectively  ||  MP HC: MPPSC Cannot Reject Doctors For PG Additional Registration Not Mentioned in the Advertisement  ||  Supreme Court: Registered Sale Deed Carries Strong Presumption of Genuineness  ||  SC: Registry Cannot Intrude Into Judiciary’s Exclusive Domain By Questioning Why a Party is Impleaded  ||  Calcutta HC: Third-Party Suits in a Deity’s Name are Allowed Only When The Sebait Loses Authority    

Canara Bank and Ors. Vs. Kameshwar Singh - (Supreme Court) (08 Jan 2020)

General Manager being an authority higher to Disciplinary Authority can exercise power of Disciplinary Authority to impose penalty

MANU/SC/0017/2020

Service

Canara Bank and its functionaries have filed present appeals challenging the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, whereby the order of punishment passed against the Respondent by the Appellate Authority, namely, the General Manager of the Bank, was quashed and the matter was remitted to the Disciplinary Authority, namely, the Deputy General Manager to proceed with the inquiry from the stage of receipt of the inquiry report and to conclude the proceedings in accordance with law.

The Division Bench has interfered with the order of the learned Single Judge on the ground that the General Manager being an authority higher to Disciplinary Authority cannot exercise the power of the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, the Division Bench quashed the order of punishment and remitted the matter to the Disciplinary Authority, namely, the Deputy General Manager for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

It is clear from the Regulation 5(3) of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976, the Disciplinary Authority or any other authority higher than it, may impose any penalties specified in Regulation 4 on any officer employee. In the instant case, the departmental proceedings against the Respondent were initiated by the Deputy General Manager being the Disciplinary Authority. But the order of punishment has been passed by the General Manager, who was higher than the Disciplinary Authority. Having regard to Regulation 5(3), the Division Bench was not justified in holding that, General manager has no authority to pass the order of punishment.

The order of the Division Bench impugned herein is set aside and the order of the learned Single Judge remitting the matter to the authorised Appellate Authority for reconsideration of the appeal is restored. The appeals are accordingly allowed.

Tags : PUNISHMENT   IMPOSITION   AUTHORITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved