Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard special leave petitions against an order of the Madras High Court Division Bench dated September 9, 1996, which dismissed writ petitions filed by the petitioner challenging a show cause notice issued by the respondent bank. The petitioner, while working as a manager of the bank, was charged on November 3, 1986 with offences under Sections 420, 467, 477 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The trial court convicted the petitioner under Sections 420 and 477A IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Act, sentencing him to one year imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3,000 on each count. On appeal, the High Court suspended the sentence on September 15, 1987 and enlarged the petitioner on bail. The bank had initially issued a show cause notice pending trial on September 24, 1987, which the petitioner challenged and which was subsequently withdrawn. After conviction, the bank issued a second show cause notice on September 12, 1994. The petitioner challenged this notice in writ petitions, which the High Court dismissed. The Supreme Court considered whether invocation of Regulation 11 of the Canara Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations was valid when the conviction was recorded but the sentence suspended, and whether procedural regulations 6, 7, and 8 had to be followed. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the conviction was not one of the enumerated misconducts, that removal did not follow due to misconduct under the regulations, and that therefore regulations 6,7,8 applied and Regulation 11 did not. The court rejected this argument. It held that though the High Court suspended the operation of the judgment, the conviction recorded by the trial court could not be obliterated; it remained a conviction, only the execution of sentence was stayed pending appeal. Regulation 11 contained a non obstante clause which expressly excluded the necessity to follow Regulations 6,7,8. The disciplinary authority could impose any penalties specified in Regulation 4 if the officer employee had been convicted on a criminal charge or on the strength of facts or conclusions arrived at by a judicial trial. The court noted that Regulation 11 could be invoked in two situations: conviction of a criminal charge or on the strength of facts or conclusions arrived at by a judicial trial. Since the criminal court had recorded conviction, invocation was proper. The further contention that conviction must relate to a criminal misconduct under the Regulation was rejected. The court clarified that if action was taken on the basis of a criminal conviction, it was not necessary to link it to enumerated misconducts; action could be taken irrespective of abuse of office. The court also observed that since the petitioner was not an employee governed by the proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution, it need not go into whether disciplinary action could be taken pending criminal proceedings leading to conviction. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order and dismissed the special leave petitions, holding that the authorities were competent to take action under Regulation 11 despite the suspension of sentence.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Effect of Criminal Conviction During Pendency of Appeal - Canara Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, Regulation 11 - The Supreme Court held that suspension of sentence by the appellate court did not obliterate the conviction recorded by the trial court; the conviction remained, and only execution of sentence was stayed. Therefore, the disciplinary authority could validly invoke Regulation 11 based on the criminal conviction. Held that the show cause notice was validly issued. B) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Non Obstante Clause and Exclusion of Procedural Regulations - Canara Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, Regulations 4, 6, 7, 8, 11 - The non obstante clause in Regulation 11 excluded the necessity to follow the procedure prescribed under Regulations 6, 7, and 8. The authority was empowered to impose any of the penalties specified in Regulation 4 if the officer employee had been convicted on a criminal charge or on the strength of facts or conclusions arrived at by a judicial trial. Held that invocation of Regulation 11 was proper. C) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Misconduct Not Required to be Enumerated for Conviction-Based Action - Canara Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, Regulation 4 - The contention that the conviction must relate to a specified misconduct under Regulation 4 was rejected. If action was taken on the basis of a criminal conviction, it need not be linked to enumerated misconducts; action could be taken irrespective of abuse of office. Held that the disciplinary action was competent.
Issue of Consideration
Whether invocation of Regulation 11 of Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations is valid when conviction has been recorded but sentence suspended; whether Regulations 6, 7, 8 need to be followed.
Final Decision
Special leave petitions dismissed. Supreme Court upheld High Court's order dismissing writ petition; held that disciplinary authority competent to issue show cause notice under Regulation 11 based on criminal conviction, despite suspension of sentence.
Law Points
- Conviction by criminal court not obliterated by suspension of sentence
- Regulation 11 non obstante clause excludes Regulations 6
- 7
- 8
- Disciplinary authority may impose penalties on conviction of criminal charge
- Action not dependent on misconduct enumerated in Regulations
- Article 311(2) proviso not applicable to bank employee
