Summary
The General Manager could impose a disciplinary penalty although proceedings had been initiated by the Deputy General Manager as disciplinary authority. Regulation 5(3) expressly authorised a higher authority to impose penalties. The Court restored the Single Judge’s remand for reconsideration of the employee’s appeal rather than the Division Bench’s direction to restart at the inquiry-report stage.
Issues
- Whether an authority higher than the designated disciplinary authority may impose the penalty.
- Which remand order should govern further consideration.
Provisions considered
- Regulation 5, Canara Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976Sub-regulation (3) expressly permits the disciplinary authority or a higher authority to impose a Regulation 4 penalty. (¶¶ 12, 13)
Held
- The General Manager was higher than the Deputy General Manager who initiated proceedings. Regulation 5(3) therefore authorised the General Manager to pass the punishment order; the Division Bench’s contrary conclusion was erroneous. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- The Single Judge’s remand to the authorised appellate authority for reconsideration was restored. The grounds in the employee’s appeal had not been addressed, and the judgment did not finally uphold the punishment on its merits. (¶¶ 8, 14)
Result
Bank’s appeals allowed. The Division Bench order was set aside and the Single Judge’s order remitting the appeal for reconsideration by the authorised appellate authority restored. Parties to bear their respective costs.