CANARA BANK AND ORS. versus KAMESHWAR SINGH

CANARA BANK AND ORS. versus KAMESHWAR SINGH

Regulation 5(3) of the Canara Bank Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 authorises the Disciplinary Authority or any authority higher than it, including the General Manager, to impose penalties specified in Regulation 4; therefore the Division Bench was not justified in holding that the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Canara Bank and Ors.; Respondent: Kameshwar Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Decided by Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeals allowed
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Proceedings, Suspension, Compulsory Retirement, Appellate Authority, Regulation 5(3)
Banking Service Law Administrative Law Disciplinary Proceedings Suspension Compulsory Retirement Appellate Authority Regulation 5(3)

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canara Bank and Ors.

Appellant

Kameshwar Singh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Decided by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an authority higher than the Disciplinary Authority (here the General Manager) can impose penalties specified in Regulation 4 when disciplinary proceedings were instituted by the Disciplinary Authority (Deputy General Manager)
  2. 2 Whether the Division Bench was justified in quashing the order of punishment and remitting the matter to the Disciplinary Authority on the ground that the General Manager could not exercise the power of the Disciplinary Authority

Ratio Decidendi

Regulation 5(3) of the Canara Bank Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 authorises the Disciplinary Authority or any authority higher than it, including the General Manager, to impose penalties specified in Regulation 4; therefore the Division Bench was not justified in holding that the General Manager lacked authority to impose the punishment, and the Single Judge's order remitting the matter to the authorised Appellate Authority for reconsideration is restored.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed

Orders

  • Set aside the order of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 14.07.2017 in LPA Nos. 1430 of 2013 and 849 of 2013.
  • Restore the Single Judge's order remitting the matter to the authorised Appellate Authority for reconsideration of the appeal.