# Reeta Gupta v. Astt. General Manager Personal Oriental Bank of Commerce

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 375
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-07
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 2000700 of 2003
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/reeta-gupta-v-astt-general-manager-personal-oriental-bank-of-commerce-50641
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

Civil Law - Oriental Bank of Commerce -
Regulation 4(i) - Articles 14, 16 & 21 -
Removal from service, Disciplinary Authority,
Natural Justice, Non-speaking order, Appellate
Authority, Proportionality of punishment.

Reta
Gupta
was
appointed/promoted
as
Manager (MMG Scale-II) on 12.07.1995 by the
Deputy General Manager, Oriental Bank of
Commerce (OBC). On 25.09.2000, she received
a letter from the Deputy General Manager,
Lucknow, regarding a complaint by Shri
Dushyant Singh alleging financial irregularities.
The petitioner responded on 09.10.2000. The
petitioner was appointed as an Officer (JMGS-I)
by the Deputy General Manager, Lucknow, and
confirmed on 15.04.1999. On 10.10.2000, she
was issued a letter alleging irregularities during
her posting at Gorakhnath, Gorakhpur, to which
she admitted lapses and complied by depositing
the amount as advised. In both cases, the
Assistant General Manager (Personnel), Head
Office, New Delhi, issued a show cause notice
and a charge-sheet . The Assistant General
Manager imposed a major penalty of "Removal
from service which shall not be a disqualification
for future employment" under Regulation 4(i) of
the OBC (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations,
1982, in both cases, without providing reasons
(non-speaking order).

•
The Assistant General Manager lacked
jurisdiction to impose the penalty, as
only an authority not below the rank of
the
appointing
authority
(Deputy
General Manager) could impose a
major penalty like removal.

•
The Disciplinary Authority's orders were
non-speaking and failed to provide
reasons
for
disagreeing
with
the
Enquiry Officer's findings, violating
natural justice.

•
The Appellate Authority's orders were
arbitrary, lacking reasoned analysis and
opportunity for the petitioner to rebut
adverse findings.

•
The penalty was disproportionate, and
the
process
violated
constitutional
protections under Articles 14, 16, and

## Text

_Characters 0–39,914 of 54,701. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39914 for what follows._

8 All. Reeta Gupta Vs. Astt. General Manager Personal Oriental Bank of Commerce
375
person entitled to reimbursement may owe
to the person liable to reimburse. The view
that the expression 'any payment' in Clause
(4) should be interpreted to include
payment of any tax for which the lessor
was primarily liable, even though under
Clause (3) the Board may have been
entitled to recover only part thereof from
the occupier, seems also to be in accord
with the rule of equitable construction, for,
if it were held that the occupier is entitled
to pay and be reimbursed only to the extent
of the proportionate liability in respect of
the portion in his occupation, it would lead
to anomalies and hardship on the occupier.
The Municipal Board may refuse to accept
part payment and deprive the occupier of
municipal amenities enjoyed by him in
common with other occupiers.

37. Therefore, keeping in view the
provisions
of
Section
149
of
the
Municipalities Act, the petitioner cannot be
held to have defaulted in payment of any
arrears of rent when the appellant has
established that he had paid an amount of
Rs.1500/- which exceeded Rs.1260/- in
respect of which he was alleged to have
defaulted had been paid by him to the
Municipal Board under notices of demand
served upon him in respect of taxes due
against property including the portion of
which the he was the tenant.

38. The Hon'ble Apex Court has
already observed in the case of Deoki
Nandan (supra) that the mere fact that
members of the public are allowed to
worship by itself would not make an
endowment as public. Thus, it appears that
the present Trust is a Private Trust and the
concurrent finding recorded by the lower
courts are erroneous and liable to be
interfered. Consequently, the trust in
question is not exempted from and the
provisions of Sec 13 of Act,1972 and the
same are applicable to it.

39. Moreover, the petitioner himself
has admitted that there is relationship of
tenant and landlord between him and the
opposite-party no.3 The petitioner is
regularly paying the rent. Thus, there is
undisputed relationship of the landlord and
tenant between them.

40. In view of the above the
concurrent findings of the courts below are
erroneous and the provisions Section 13 of
the Act of 1972 are applicable in the instant
case. Hence, in this regard, the orders of the
lower courts are hereby set aside.

41. In these circumstances, the writ
petition is allowed and the impugned order
dated 9.2.2012 passed by Additional
District
Judge,
Court
Room
No.13,
Lucknow in SCC Revision No.39 of 2011
as well as the judgment dated 5.5.2011
passed by 2nd Additional Judge, Small
Causes, Lucknow in SCC Suit No.222 of
2001 are set aside.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 375
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J

Writ A No. 2000700 of 2003
And
Writ A No. 2000699 of 2003

Reeta Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
Astt. General Manager Personal Oriental
Bank of Commerce ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
376 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rajiv Srivastava, Smt. Nalini Jain

Counsel for the Respondent:
B.B. Saxena, Ghaus Beg, Vinay Shanker

Civil Law - Oriental Bank of Commerce -
Regulation 4(i) - Articles 14, 16 & 21 -
Removal from service, Disciplinary Authority,
Natural Justice, Non-speaking order, Appellate
Authority, Proportionality of punishment.

Reta
Gupta
was
appointed/promoted
as
Manager (MMG Scale-II) on 12.07.1995 by the
Deputy General Manager, Oriental Bank of
Commerce (OBC). On 25.09.2000, she received
a letter from the Deputy General Manager,
Lucknow, regarding a complaint by Shri
Dushyant Singh alleging financial irregularities.
The petitioner responded on 09.10.2000. The
petitioner was appointed as an Officer (JMGS-I)
by the Deputy General Manager, Lucknow, and
confirmed on 15.04.1999. On 10.10.2000, she
was issued a letter alleging irregularities during
her posting at Gorakhnath, Gorakhpur, to which
she admitted lapses and complied by depositing
the amount as advised. In both cases, the
Assistant General Manager (Personnel), Head
Office, New Delhi, issued a show cause notice
and a charge-sheet . The Assistant General
Manager imposed a major penalty of "Removal
from service which shall not be a disqualification
for future employment" under Regulation 4(i) of
the OBC (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations,
1982, in both cases, without providing reasons
(non-speaking order).

•
The Assistant General Manager lacked
jurisdiction to impose the penalty, as
only an authority not below the rank of
the
appointing
authority
(Deputy
General Manager) could impose a
major penalty like removal.

•
The Disciplinary Authority's orders were
non-speaking and failed to provide
reasons
for
disagreeing
with
the
Enquiry Officer's findings, violating
natural justice.

•
The Appellate Authority's orders were
arbitrary, lacking reasoned analysis and
opportunity for the petitioner to rebut
adverse findings.

•
The penalty was disproportionate, and
the
process
violated
constitutional
protections under Articles 14, 16, and
21.

Reliefs Granted:

•
The orders of removal in both writ
petitions were quashed.

•
The court directed respondent no. 4 to
treat the petitioner as continuing in
service with all consequential benefits.

The orders dated 21.09.2002 passed by the
Assistant
General
Manager
(Personnel),
imposing the penalty of "Removal from service
which shall not be a disqualification for future
employment" under Regulation 4(i) of the
Oriental Bank of Commerce (Discipline &
Appeal) Regulations, 1982, in both Writ-A No.
2000700 of 2003 and Writ-A No. 2000699 of
2003, were quashed as they were non-speaking
orders and failed to provide reasons for
disagreeing with the Enquiry Officer's findings,
violating principles of natural justice.

The Disciplinary Authority, being lower in rank
than the Appointing Authority (Deputy General
Manager), lacked competence to impose a
major penalty like removal from service, as per
the analogy with Regulation 68(II) of the
S.B.I.Officers Service Rules, rendering the
orders void ab initio.

The
Appellate
Authority's
orders
dated
03/04.02.2003,
dismissing
the
petitioner's
appeals
without
reasoned
findings
or
opportunity to rebut adverse observations, were
held to be arbitrary and passed without
application of mind.

The penalty of removal was found to be
disproportionate and violative of Articles 14, 16,
and 21 of the Constitution of India, as the
petitioner was not placed under suspension
despite
alleged
irregularities,
and
the
Disciplinary Authority failed to adhere to
procedural fairness.
8 All. Reeta Gupta Vs. Astt. General Manager Personal Oriental Bank of Commerce
377
The petitioner was entitled to be treated as
continuing in service with all consequential
benefits.

Case Law Discussed:

1. S.B.I. Vs S. Vijay Kumar (1990)

2. Sirsilk Ltd. Vs Textile Committee (1989)

3. Krishna Kumar Vs Divisional Assistant,
Electrical Engineer (1979)

4. P.N.B. Vs Kunj Behari Mishra (1998)

5. Dr. Har Kishan Singh Vs St. of Pun. (1971)

6. U.O.I.Vs J.A. Munaff (1967) -

Reliefs Granted:

Writs of certiorari issued quashing the orders of
removal dated 21.09.2002 and appellate orders
dated 03/04.02.2003.

Writ of mandamus issued directing respondent
no. 4 to treat the petitioner as continuing in
service with all consequential benefits.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard Shri Rajiv Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
Vinay Shankar, learned counsel for the
respondent.

2. Since both the writ petitions
involves similar controversy, they are being
decided collectively by this common
judgement and Writ-A No. 2000700 of
2003 is being treated as leading case.

3. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has prayed for the
following reliefs:

(i) a writ of certiorari or a writ or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the order of "Removal from
service
which
shall
not
be
a
disqualification for furture employment", as
contained in Letter No.H.O.:PER(DAD):
2291 (Annexure-1) passed by A.G.M.
(Personal), Head Office, New Delhi, dated
September 21, 2002.

(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or a
writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing the order of Appellate
Authority opposite party no.3 as contained
in letter no. H.O.:PER (DAD) 620 dated
February 3/4 2003 (Annexure 2), upholding
the punishment imposed by opposite party
no.1 vide his letter dated 21/9/2002.

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or
a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the opposite party
no.4 to continue to treat the petitioner in
service with consequential benefits treating
the order passed by opposite party no.1
removing the petitioner from service vide
(Annexure-1) and the order of the Appellate
Authority, opposite party no.3 upholding
vide
letter
H.O.:
PER(DAD)
620,
(Annexure-2) the order of removal against
the petitioner passed by opposite party no.1
as void abinitio.

(iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or
a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the opposite party
no.5 to deem the mandatory statutory
provision of consultation provided under
Section 19 of the Banking companies
(Acquisition and Transfer of undertakings)
Act, 1980 as not having taken place to the
extent there is no express provision as to an
Officer (petitioner) not to be subjected to
the imposition of a major penalty like
removal from service by an authority lower
in rank and grade then the appointing
authority in regulation 3(g) of Oriental
Bank of commerce Discipline & Appeal
Regulations, 1982 as provided in 68 (II) of
the State Bank of India Officers service
regulation.
378 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(v) A writ of mandamus or a writ,
order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the opposite party
no.6 to deem the mandatory provision of
previous sanction as not having been
accorded in framing the Discipline &
Appeal Regulations of Oriental Bank of
Commerce to the extent regulation 3(g) of
the said regulations does not expressly
provide that a major penalty like removal
from service imposed upon the petitioner
cannot be inflicted by an officer not below
the rank of appointing authority of the
petitioner, as it is provided in regulation
68(II) of service regulation applicable to
officers of State Bank of India.

(vi) Any other appropriate writ,
order or direction which this Hon'ble Court
may deem just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

(vii) Allow the writ petition with
costs in favour of the petitioner.

4. By means of Writ-A No.2000699 of
2003, the petitioner has prayed for the
following reliefs:

(i) a writ of certiorari or a writ,
order or direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing the order of "Removal
from service which shall not be a
disqualification for future employment", as
contained in Letter No.H.O.: PER (DAD):
2292 (Annexure-1) passed by A.G.M.
(Personnel), Head Office, New Delhi, dated
September 21, 2002.

(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or a
writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing the order of Appellate
Authority opposite party no.3 as contained
in letter no. H.O.: PER (DAD): 620 dated
February
3/4,
2003
(Annexure-2)
upholding the punishment imposed by
opposite party no.1 vide his letter dated
21.9.2002.

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or
a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the opposite party
no.4 to continue to treat the petitioner in
service with consequential benefits treating
the order passed by opposite party no.1
removing the petitioner from service vide
(Annexure-1) and the order of the Appellate
Authority, opposite party no.3 upholding
vide
letter
H.O.:
PER(DAD)
620,
Annexure-2 the order of removal against
the petitioner passed by opposite party no.1
as void abinitio.

(iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or
a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the opposite party
no.5 to deem the mandatory statutory
provision of consultation provided under
Section 19 of the Banking Companies
(Acquisition and Transfer of undertaking)
Act, 1980 as not having taken place to the
extent Regulation 3(g) does not expressly
provide for imposing a major penalty like
removal from service by an authority not
lower in rank and graded than the
Appointing Autority as it is provided in the
proviso to Regulation 68(II) of State Bank
of India, Officers Service Rules.

(v) A writ of mandamus or a writ,
order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the opposite party
no.6 to deem as if the previous sanction to
the making of Oriental Bank of Commerce,
Officer Employees Discipline and Appeal
Regulations, 1982 has not been accorded to
the extent Regulation 3(g) of the said
Regulations does not expressly contain the
provision to Regulation 68(II) of State Bank
of India Officers Service Rules, which
provides,
"Where
the
Disciplinary
Authority is lower in rank than the
Appointing Authority in respect of the
category of officers to which the petitioner
belongs, no order for imposing any of the
major
penalties
specified
in
clauses
8 All. Reeta Gupta Vs. Astt. General Manager Personal Oriental Bank of Commerce
379
(e),(f),(g) and (h) of rule 67 shall be made
except by the Appointing Authority o any
authority
higher
than
it
on
the
recommendations
of
the
Disciplinary
Authority."

(vi) Any other appropriate writ,
order or direction which this Hon'ble Court
may deem just, and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

(vii) Allow the writ petition with
costs in favour of the petitioner."

5. Facts of Writ-A No.2000700 of
2013 are that the petitioner was appointed/
promoted on 12.7.1995 as Manager in
MMG II by Deputy General Manager in
terms of "Competent Authority" designed
by the Board of Directors of the Bank for
the purpose of an appointment of an officer
in the rank and grade of the petitioner. On
25.9.2000, the petitioner was served upon a
letter
by
Deputy
General
Manager,
Lucknow with reference to a complaint
made by one Shri Dushyant Singh alleging
therein
certain
financial
irregularities
against the petitioner.

On 9.10.2000,
the
petitioner
submitted her reply to the Deputy General
Manager, Regional Office, Lucknow. On
27.1.2001, opposite party no.1- Assistant
General Manager (Personnel), Head Office,
New Delhi served a show cause notice
upon the petitioner on the subject matter of
the complaint already having been taken
cognizance of by the Deputy General
Manager, Regional Office, Lucknow.

On 27.6.2001, the petitioner was
served upon a charge-sheet by opposite
party no.1, Assistant General Manager
(Personnel), Head Office, New Delhi to
which the petitioner submitted her reply on
11.7.2001. On 8.8.2001, the opposite party
no.1 instituted the enquiry against the
petitioner. On 6.5.2002, the complainant
(Shri Dushyant Singh) confirmed having
written to the petitioner his letter dated
25.1.2000
absolving
her
of
any
responsibility in respect of any of the
accounts held in the name of his mother or
in his own name jointly with his mother in
Oriental Bank of Commerce as well as in
banks mentioned in the aforesaid letter.

On 1.7.2002, the opposite party
no.1,
Assistant
General
Manager
(Personnel), Head Office, New Delhi asked
from
the
petitioner
to
make
his
representation to the report of the inquiry
officer received by the petitioner enclosed
with the letter of the opposite party no.1.
On 23.7.2002, the petitioner submitted her
representation with opposite party no.1 on
the report of Inquiring Authority.

On 21.9.2002, opposite party no.1
imposed a major penalty of "Removal from
service which shall not be a disqualification
for future employment" on the petitioner in
terms of Regulation 4(i) of the (Discipline
and Appeal) Regulations, 1982 by a nonspeaking order.

The opposite party no.1, at no
point of time, neither when he served upon
the petitioner the charge sheet nor when he
imposed upon the petitioner the punishment
of removal was the competent Disciplinary
Authority in respect of the petitioner much
less competent was he to impose the major
penalty of removal from service.

In terms of schedule as providing
for Disciplinary Authority in respect of the
petitioner appended to the Discipline and
Appeal Regulations, 1982 as amended upto
30.06.2002, Disciplinary Authority spcified
in the schedule which is competent to
impose any of the penalties in Regulation 4
is Deputy General Manager, Regional
Office, Lucknow. But, as on the date of
imposition of the penalty by opposite party
no.1 the amended schedule dated 8.2.2002
had come into force.
380 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Again, Deputy General Manager,
Regional Office, Lucknow is the authority
specified in the schedule competent to
impose any of the penalties upon the
petitioner in terms of Regulation 4 as read
with Regulation 5(3). Also Regulation 3(g)
of Oriental Bank of Commerce Discipline
and Appeal Regulations, 1982 is in pari
materia with Regulation 68 of State Bank
of India Officers Service Rules. Therefore,
the protection of not being subjected to the
infliction of a major penalty like removal
from service by an authority lower than the
Appointing Authority as available to
Officers in State Bank of India is available
to the petitioner also.

The order under challenge passed
by opposite party no.1 of removal from
service which shall not be disqualification
for future employment and rejection of the
appeal is violative of Articles 14, 16, 19
and 21 of the Constitution of India.

On 7.1.2003, the writ petition
no.1/2003 (SB) filed by the petitioner
against the order of removal from service
was
relegated
to
statutory Appellate
Authority by this Hon'ble Court with the
direction to the Appellate Authority to
decide the appeal on merits and in
accordance with law.

On 15.1.2003, the petitioner filed
her comprehensive appeal to the Appellate
Authority, opposite party no.3, General
Manager (Personnel) Head Office, New
Delhi which has been dismissed upholding
the order of the Disciplinary Authority.

6. Facts in Writ-A No.2000699 of
2003 are that the petitioner was appointed/
promoted as Officer in JMGS I by Deputy
General Manager, Regional Lucknow. On
15.4.1999, the petitioner was confirmed as
Officer in JMGS I by Deputy General
Manager, Regional Lucknow with effect
from 20.3.1999.

On
10.10.2000,
the
Deputy
General Manager, Regional Lucknow,
opposite
party
no.2
issued
a
letter
No.ROL/I&C/4163
dated
10.10.2000
captioned "Irregularities committed by you
during
your
posting
at
Gorakhnath,
Gorakhpur" and adviced the petitioner to
deposit the amount fraudulently withdrawn
by him.

On 23.10.2000, the petitioner's
letter of compliance dated 23.10.2000
addressed to opposite party no.2, Deputy
General
Manager,
Regional
Lucknow
admitting his lapses therein. The Deputy
General Manager, Regional Lucknow, the
competent Disciplinary Authority in terms
of Regulation 3(g) of Oriental Bank of
Commerce
Discipline
and
Appeal
Regulations, 1982 took his decision as to
the alleged lapses and admission of guilt in
respect of those lapses by advising to
deposit the amount and to certify that no
such lapses have been committed by the
petitioner in any office he has worked at.

On 27.6.2001, the petitioner was
served with a charge sheet by opposite
party no.1, Assistant General (Personnel)
Head Office, New Delhi. On 8.8.2001, the
opposite party no.1, Assistant General
Manager (Personnel), Head Office, New
Delhi instituted the inquiry proceedings.
On 1.7.2002, the opposite party no.1,
Assistant General Manager (Personnel)
Head Office, New Delhi asked from the
petitioner to make his representation to the
report of the inquiry officer received by the
petitioner enclosed with the letter of the
opposite party no.1.

On 23.7.2002,
the
petitioner
submitted his representation with opposite
party no.1 on the report of Inquiring
Authority. On 21.9.2002, the opposite party
no.1 imposed a major penalty of "Removal
from service which shall not be a
disqualification for future employment" on
8 All. Reeta Gupta Vs. Astt. General Manager Personal Oriental Bank of Commerce
381
the petitioner in terms of Regulation 4(i) of
the (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations,
1982 by a non-speaking order.

The opposite party no.1, at no
point of time, neither when he served upon
the petitioner the charge-sheet nor when he
imposed upon the petitioner the punishment
of removal, was the competent Disciplinary
Authority in respect of the petitioner, much
less competent was he to impose the major
penalty of removal from service.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the order dated 21.9.2002
passed by Assistant General Manager
(Personnel), Head Office, New Delhi
imposing a major penalty of "Removal
from service which shall not be a
disqualification for future employment",
passed under Regulation 4(i) of Discipline
and Appeal Regulations,1982 is not an
order supported by reasons and is thus not a
speaking order. Against the finding of the
Inquiring Authority in respect of charge
no.1 as unauthorized and highly irregular
act the opposite party no.1 has treated the
petitioner as having fraudulently got
credited the proceeds of Transfer Payment
Order to her own account. To the extent the
opposite party no.1 has differed with the
finding of the Inquiring Authority, he is
liable to afford an opportunity to the
petitioner to explain her conduct in respect
to charge no.1.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
next submitted that the finding of the
Inquiring Authority in respect of charge-2
is perverse inasmuch as the said finding is
based on disregard of the evidence given in
the proceedings in respect of the said
charge. The charge has been proved in
complete disregard and violation of the
provision
to
Regulation
15
of
the
Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1982.
The opposite party no.1 vide his order
dated 21.9.2002 passed his order in respect
of charge no.2 in spite of the proviso to
Regulation 15 without assigning any
reason. Thus, opposite party no.1 has
passed a non-speaking order in respect of
charge no.2 also.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner
next submitted that the Appellate Authority
(opposite party no.3) has not passed a
reasoned order and has summarily rejected
the appeal filed by the petitioner in
pursuance of the orders passed by this
Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No.1(SB) of
2003 in spite of the direction of this
Hon'ble court to decide the appeal filed by
the petitioner on merits, the opposite party
no.3 has failed to do so.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner
next submitted that the order of the
opposite party no.1 in imposing a major
penalty of removal from service which
shall not be a disqualification for future
employment, in terms of Regulation 4(i)
was wholly without jurisdiction as an
Officer below the rank of a Deputy General
Manager, in the Bank was never the
competent
Disciplinary
Authority
to
impose the major penalty of removal from
service which shall be a disqualification for
future employment in terms of Regulation
4(i).

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner
next submitted that the penalty of removal
from service in terms of Regulation 4(i)
imposed
on
the
petitioner
is
disproportionately excessive as even after it
was prima facie established that the
petitioner could be responsible for an
irregular act, she was not placed under
suspension
as
contemplated
under
382 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Regulation 12(1) a by the competent
Disciplinary Authority.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner
next submitted that the Discipline &
AppealRegulations framed for State Bank
of India and Oriental Bank of Commerce
by their respective Boards are in Pari
Materia, the words "Competent to impose"
occurring in the definition of Disciplinary
Authority in terms of Regulation 3(g) of
Discipline & Appeal regulations of Oriental
Bank of Commerce has to be read with the
proviso to Regulation 68(ii) of the State
Bank of India Officers' Service Rules.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner
next submitted that the definition of
competent authority in terms of Regulation
3(g) does not merely provide for an
authority specified in the schedule as the
Disciplinary Authority. It also clearly
mandates that the Disciplinary Authority
has to have the competence to impose any
of the penalties specified in Regulation 4 of
the Discipline & Appeal Regulations. The
competence to impose a major penalty like
removal from service upon the petitioner is
conferred only when such authority is not
below the rank of the appointing authority
as is the case applicable to the officers of
State Bank of India.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner
next submitted that the petitioner has got
the vested right to be judged in respect of
the security of tenure in the service of the
Bank which is an instrumentality of the
State by an Authority/ Officer not below
the rank of her Appointing Authority.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner
next submitted that the State Bank of India
being a public sector bank as per Regulation
3(1)(iii) for the purpose of Discipline &
Appeal Regulations of Oriental Bank of
Commerce, the words 'competent to impose'
as given in the definition of Disciplinary
Authority in terms of regulation 3(g) have to
be construed so as not to render them
redundant. By reading the proviso to
Regulation 68 (II) of State Bank of India
Officers Service Rules which provides that a
major penalty can be imposed only by an
authority not lower in rank and grade than the
Appointing Authority in Regulation 3(g) of
Oriental Bank of Commerce, the words
'competent to impose' can be given meaning
and substance.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner
next submitted that the Discipline & Appeal
Regulations in State Bank of India and
Oriental Bank of Commerce have been
framed in consultation with Reserve Bank of
India and with previous sanction of Central
Government, the protection of not, being
subjected to the imposition of a major penalty
applicable to Officers in State Bank of India
in terms of the proviso to Regulation 68(II) of
State Bank of India Officers Service Rules by
an authority not lower in rank than the
Appointing Authority has to be read in the
definition of Disciplinary Authority provided
in regulation 3(g) of Oriental Bank of
Commerce Officer Employees (Discipline &
Appeal) Regulation, 1982 in order to
safeguard the rights of the petitioner as
contained in Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the
Constitution of India.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner
next
submitted
that
the
punishment
imposed upon the petitioner of removal
from
service
is
grossly
unfair
and
disproportionate to the finding of the
Inquiring Authority.

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner
next submitted that the impugned order of
8 All. Reeta Gupta Vs. Astt. General Manager Personal Oriental Bank of Commerce
383
removal
which
shall
not
be
a
disqualification for future employment
imposed upon the petitioner in terms of
Regulation 4 (i) by opposite party no.1 is
void abinitio and cannot be cured by
rejection of her appeal vide order dated 3/4
February, 2003 of the Appellate Authority.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner
next submitted that the removal of the
petitioner from the service of the Bank by
an authority lower than her appointing
authority is clearly violative of Article 14,
16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

20. Learned counsel for the petitioner
next submitted that the order of the
Appellate Authority, opposite party no.3,
contained in Annexure CA-9 to the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite
parties has been passed in complete
disregard of the change in jurisdiction of
the competent disciplinary authority in
respect of the petitioner vide Circular
No.PER/12/02/347 dated 8.2.2002 (page 95
of the writ petition), which rendered the
impugned order passed by the opposite
party no.1 wholly without jurisdiction
thereby rendering the said impugned order
void ab initio.

21. Learned counsel for the petitioner
next submitted that the order of the
Appellate Authority, opposite party no.3
contained in Annexure CA-9 to the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite
parties has been passed without any
application of mind on the most material
grounds taken in the appeal of the
petitioner, thereby rendering the aforesaid
order as patently illegal, being arbitrary and
discriminatory.

22. In support of his submissions,
learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed
reliance
upon
the
following
judgments:

(i) State Bank of India v. S.
Vijay Kumar, decided on 18.7.1990
passed in Civil Appeal Nos.3392-3394 of
1990

(ii)
Sirsilk
Ltd.
v.
Textile
Committee and Ors. reported 1989 Supp
(1) SCC 168

(iii)
Kirshna
Kumar
v.
Divisional Assistant, Electrical Engineer,
Central Railway and others reported in
(1979) 4 SCC 289

(iv) Punjab National Bank and
others v. Kunj Behari Mishra reported
in (1998) 7 SCC 84

(v) Dr. Har Kishan Singh v.
State of Punjab and others, decided on
25.3.1971 passed in Civil Appeal No.430
of 1970

(vi) Union of India and others
and J.A. Munaff, decided on 7.12.1967
passed in Civil Appeal No.995 of 1967

23. Per contra, Shri Vinay Shanker,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents
submitted that the petitioner was promoted
by the Interview committed and not by the
Deputy General Manager as per provisions
of Promotion Policy of the respondent
Bank and promotion letter dated 17.7.1995
was issued by the Assistant General
manager (Per.) Competent Authority for
Scale-II officers is Regional Head/ Chief
Manager.
Thus,
Scale-IV
officer
is
appointing authority for Scale-II officers.

24.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents next submitted that actually the
petitioner was not appointed in MMGS-II
instead she was appointed as Clerk/ Typist
and her Appointing Authority for the said
post is Assistant Regional Manager i.e. an
officer in MMGS-III. She was promoted to
384 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the post of Manager as per promotion
policy of the respondent Bank.

25. Learned counsel for the respondent
next submitted that at the relevant point of
time,
the
Deputy
General
Manager,
Regional Office, Lucknow was controlling
the Lucknow Region administratively but
the
Disciplinary
Authorities
for
all
employees of the respondent-Bank were at
Head
Office
and
Assistant
General
Manager (Per.) was the Disciplinary
Authority for the Officers in JMG Scale-I
and MMG Scale-II. Since the petitioner
was an officer in MMG Scale-II, the Asstt.
General Manager (Per.) at Head Office was
his Disciplinary Authority under OBC
Officer employees (Discipline & Appeal)
Regulations, 1982.

26.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents next submitted that even in
circular dated 8.2.2002, it is clarified that in
the cases where Award Staff/ Officers in
JMG Scale-I and MMG Scale-II have been
placed under suspension/ charge-sheeted
prior to 8.2.2002 the competent authority in
all such cases will be the Head Office.
Since the petitioner was charge sheeted on
27.6.2002 her Disciplinary Authority was
the Assistant General manager (Per) at
Head Office.

27.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent next submitted that the Asstt.
General Manager (Per.) was/ is the
competent Disciplinary Authority for the
petitioner and the same is as per schedule
to the OBC Officer Employees (Discipine
& Appeal) Regulations, 1982 at the
relevant time. The schedule to the above
said regulations amended upto 30.06.2002
was inserted vide circular dated 8.2.2002
whereas the petitioner was charge sheeted
on 27.6.2001 and as per the schedule to the
said Regulations existing as on 27.06.2001,
the opposite party no.1 Asstt. General
Manager
(Per.)
was
the
competent
Disciplinary Authority for the petitioner..

28. I have considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and law-reports cited by learned counsel
for the petitioner.

29. Perusal of the material on record
reveals that the petitioner was appointed/
promoted on 12.7.1995 as Manager in
MMG II by Deputy General Manager. On
25.9.2000, the petitioner was served upon a
letter by the Deputy General Manager with
reference to a complaint made by Shri
Dushyant Singh alleging certain allegation,
to which petitioner submitted reply on
9.10.2000. Respondent no.1 (Assistant
General Manager (Personnel), Head Office,
New Delhi served a show cause notice
upon the petitioner on 27.1.2001 of the
complaint already having been taken
cognizance of by the Deputy General
Manager, Regional Office, Lucknow.

It also reveals that on 27.6.2001,
the petitioner chargesheeted by respondent
no.1, to which the petitioner submitted her
reply on 11.7.2001. On 8.8.2001, the
respondent no.1 instituted enquiry against
the petitioner. On 1.7.2002, respondent
no.1 asked from the petitioner to make his
representation to the report of the inquiry
officer received by the petitioner, to which
petitioner submitted her representation on
23.7.2002. On 21.9.2002, respondent no.1
imposed a major penalty of "Removal from
service which shall not be a disqualification
for future employment. Against which, the
petitioner filed a writ petition bearing Writ
Petition No.1/2003 (SB) which has been
disposed of with the direction to the
Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on
8 All. Reeta Gupta Vs. Astt. General Manager Personal Oriental Bank of Commerce
385
merits and in accordance with law. On
15.1.2003
the
petitioner
filed
comprehensive appeal before respondent
no.3 i.e. General Manager (Personnel)
Head Office, New Delhi which has been
dismissed while upholding the order of the
Disciplinary Authority.

30. Learned counsel for the petitioner
relied upon the several judgments in
support
of
his
submissions,
relevant
portions of which are being quoted below:

(i) State Bank of India (supra):-

20. All the employees of the bank
in the cases before us were appointed by
the
Executive
Committee.
Order
of
dismissal in their cases has been passed by
the Chief General Manager. It is an
admitted position that on the date of
passing the order of dismissal the Chief
General Manager was the appointing
authority. According to the Bank though the
employees were appointed by the Executive
Committee, but at the time when inquiry
was held and the order of dismissal passed,
the Chief General Manager had become
the appointing authority. On the other hand
the contention on behalf of the employees is
that the Executive Committee being the
appointing authority, no authority lower
than the Executive Committee can pass the
order of dis- missal in their cases.
According to their contention the Chief
General Manager, being a lower authority
than the Executive Committee, he had no
competence to pass the order of dismissal.
Learned counsel for the employees in this
regard referred to Ar- ticle 311 of the
Constitution of India and placed reliance
on a plethora of cases decided on the basis
of guarantee enshrined under Article 311 of
the Constitution.

22. Now so far as the right which
has been conferred on the employees of the
State
Bank
contained
in
Regulation
55(2)(a) is that such officers or employees
shall not be dismissed from service of the
State Bank by an authority lower than the
ap pointing authority. Thus a comparison
of the provisions contained in Article
311(1) of the Constitution and the right
guaranteed to the employees of the State
Bank under Regulation 55(2)(a) shows that
there is a material differences between the
language used in the two provisions. Under
Article 311(1) the words used are "by which
he was appointed" In Regulation 55(2)(a)
there are no such words "By which he was
appointed" and in its place the only right
guaranteed is that the employee shall not
be dismissed by an authority lower than the
appointing authority. Thus the right guaran
teed in case of the officers or employees of
the State Bank is that the order of dismissal
cannot be passed by an authority lower
than the appointing authority. A perusal of
the
relevant
Regulations
and
Rules
mentioned above clearly go to show that
the Chief General Manager had become
the appointing authority of the employees
in question under Regulation 55(2)(a) with
effect from 1.724 Admittedly the orders of
dismissal have been passed long after these
amendments when the Chief General
Manager
had
already
become
their
appointing authority under the Regula tions
and the Rules. The right that an officer or
employee of the State Bank of India cannot
be dismissed from service by an authority
lower than the appointing authority is a
creation of statutory rules and regulations.
So far as the right or protection guaranteed
under Article 311 of the Constitution is
concerned, it applies to members of the
Civil Service of the Union or an All India
service or a Civil Service of the Union or
an All India service or a Civil Service of a
State of who holds a Civil Post under the
Union or a State. Admittedly the employees
386 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the State Bank do not fall under any one
of these categories and they cannot seek
any protection under Article 311(1) of the
Constitution. The employees of the State
Bank can only claim such rights which
have been conferred under Regulation
55(2)(a) of the General Regulations. The
only right conferred under the said
provision is that the officers or employees
of the State Bank cannot be dismissed by an
authority
lower
than
the
appointing
authority. With the risk of repetition it may
be stated that on the date when the order of
dismissal has been passed, Chief General
Manager
had
already
become
the
appointing authority and as such the order
of dismissal has not been passed by an
authority
lower
than
the
appointing
authority.

(ii) Sirsilk Ltd. (supra):-

28. The Industries (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1951 and the Textiles
Committee Act, with which we are
concerned, may properly be considered to
be statutes in pari materia. According to
Sutherland:

"Statutes are considered to be in
pari materia to pertain to the same subjectmatter when they relate to the same person
or things, or to the same class of persons or
thing, or have the same purpose or object.
(Statutes and Statutory Construction, Vol.
2, p. 535, 3rd Edn.)"

The object of either of these two
Acts is to protect and to assist in the
development of Textile Industry inter alia.
"Assistance in ascertaining the meaning of
an
enactment
may
be
obtained
by
comparing its language with that used in
earlier statutes relating to the same
subject" (Craies on Statute Law, p. 140,
1971
Edn.).
Maxwell
also
in
The
Interpretation of Statutes (1976 Edn. p. 66)
states that:

"light may be thrown on the
meaning of a phrase in a statute by
reference to a specific phrase in an earlier
statute dealing with the same subjectmatter."

The Industries (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1951 is an Act earlier in
point of time and we see no reason why if a
subsequent statute by the same legislature
can be pressed in aid for the purpose of
interpreting in the event of any doubt, the
provisions of an earlier statute, the earlier
statute cannot be made use of for the
purpose of construing, in the event of
ambiguity, the provisions of a later statute.

(iii) Krishna Kumar (supra):-

4.
Article
311(1)
of
the
Constitution provides that no person who is
a member of a civil service of the Union or
an all-India service or a civil service of a
State or holds a civil post under the Union
or a State shall be dismissed or removed by
an authority subordinate to that by which
he was appointed. The simple question for
determination is whether, as alleged by the
appellant, he was removed from service by
an authority subordinate to that which had
appointed him.