6

STATE BANK OF INDIA 

Vs 

EK ANDREW 

2001 (89) FLR 35  [SC]

1

2

3

A DGM OF A BANK WAS APPOINTED AS CHAIRMAN FOR A TERM OF TWO YEARS WHICH WAS APPROVED BY RBI.  THE TERM WAS EXTENDED FOR 3 MORE YEARS.

DURING THIS PERIOD HIS SERVICES AS CHAIRMAN WAS TERMINATED ON DISCI-PLINARY GROUNDS WITH A FURTHER CONDITION THAT HE IS NOT TO SERVE ANY BANK FOR THREE YEARS

THE EX-CHAIRMAN CONTENDED THAT ON TERMINATION OF HIS APPOINTMENT AS CHAIRMAN HE SHOULD  BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE IN HIS SUBSTANTIVE POST AS DGM.

1

2

IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC PROVISION IN THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT AS CHAIRMAN,OR THE PROVISINS IN THE BANKING REGULATION ACT OR THE RULES OF THE BANK OF COCHIN, THERE WOULD BE NO AUTOMATIC CESSATION OF HIS LIEN ON THE SUBSTANTIVE POST OF DY GENERAL MANAGER IN THE  BANK OF COCHIN.

HENCE HE COULD CONTINUE IN HIS SUBSTANTIVE POST AND ALSO BE ELIGIBLE TO CONTINUE IN SBI AFTER THE AMALGAMATION OF BC WITH SBI

7

LALLAN PRASAD

Vs 

STATE OF UP 

2001(2) LLN 152 [HC-ALL]

CAN AN OFFICER BELOW THE RANK OF THE DISCIPLINARY OR PUNISHING AUTHORITY INITIATE DISCIPLINARY ACTION INCLUDING PLACING AN EMPLOYEE UNDER SUSPENSION PENDING ENQUIRY ?

1

2

QUOTING VARIOUS SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS HELD: 

AN AUTHORITY BELOW THE LELVEL OF DISCIPLINARY/PUNISHING AUTHORITY CAN INITIATE DISCIPLINARY ACTION EVEN IF THERE IS NO EXPRESS DELEGATION IN THE RULES 

HOWEVER ORDERS OF PUNISHMENT CAN BE ISSUED ONLY BY A COMPETENT AUTHORITY OR HIS SUPERIOR

8

NAVINKUMAR TIWARI

 Vs 

PRINCIPAL

THADOMAI COLLEGE

 [2001 (1) LLN 698 HC  BOM]

1

2

 3

THE PRINCIPAL OF THE COLLEGE WAS THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY

IN THE DOMESTIC ENQUIRY HE TESTIFIED AS A WITNESS

WILL THIS VITIATE THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION ORDER SUBSEQUENTLY PASSED BY HIM ?

1

2

A WITNESS FUNCTIONING AS THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY WOULD AMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE 

COURT ADVISED THAT THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION/ORDER BE CARRIED OUT BY AN OFFICER ABOVE THE RANK OF THE PRINCIPAL SO AS TO MAKE THE ENQUIRY FAIR. [BY SECRETARY OF THE COLLEGE BOARD]

9

UNION OF INDIA 

Vs

SUMITRA DEVI AND OTHERS

[2000 (II) LLJ 255 SC]

1

2

THE DECISION TO TERMINATE THE SERVICES WAS TAKEN BY THE COMPETENT DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, BUT THE TERMINATION ORDER WAS COMMUNICATED BY ANOTHER SUBORDINATE OFFICER.

THE TERMINATED EMPLOYEE CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT WAS ISSUED BY A NON-COMPETENT AUTHORITY

1

2

THE FILES AND THE DISCIPLINARY PAPERS SHOW THAT THE DECISION TO TERMINATE WAS TAKEN BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND HENCE THE TERMINATION ORDER IS VALID

MERELY BECAUSE THE ORDER WAS COMMUNICATED BY A SUBORDINATE OFFICER IT WILL NOT MAKE THE ORDER IMPROPER ON THAT COUNT.