Seperate Disciplinary Proceedings can be conducted against Bank Employee even if multiple officers are involved
The Supreme Court has ruled that separate disciplinary proceedings can be conducted against a bank employee under Regulation 10 of the Canara Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, even if multiple officers are involved in the same misconduct case.
The Court said there is no compulsory rule requiring a joint disciplinary proceeding when more than one officer is involved.
A bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice Vijay Bishnoi set aside a part of the Karnataka High Court Division Bench judgment. The High Court had earlier said that failure to hold a joint proceeding against all officers involved would make the disciplinary action invalid.
The Supreme Court agreed with the earlier view of the Karnataka High Court Single Judge, which stated:
“Regulation 10 does not give any power or right to a delinquent officer or employee to demand a joint or common proceeding. There is no such right available to an employee.”
The Court also agreed that failure to hold a joint enquiry does not make the disciplinary proceedings against an individual officer invalid.
The case started after the bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against officers allegedly linked to the same misconduct. One of the main legal questions before the Supreme Court was whether Regulation 10 made it compulsory for the bank to conduct a common enquiry against all officers together.
Regulation 10 states that when two or more officer employees are involved in a case, the disciplinary authority “may” direct that proceedings against all of them be conducted jointly.
The employees argued that once several officers were involved in the same transaction, the bank was required to hold a joint disciplinary enquiry. They claimed that separate proceedings could lead to inconsistencies and unfair treatment.
There were conflicting court decisions on this issue earlier. In Arun Kumar Alva v. Vijaya Bank (2006), the Karnataka High Court treated the word “may” as “shall,” making joint proceedings mandatory. However, in T. Baba Prasad v. Andhra Bank (2011), the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the provision only gave discretion to the bank to conduct joint proceedings if needed.
In the present case, the Karnataka High Court Single Judge held that the word “may” was discretionary. This meant the disciplinary authority could either conduct a joint proceeding or separate proceedings. However, the Division Bench later interpreted “may” as “shall,” which led Canara Bank to approach the Supreme Court.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court approved the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the T. Baba Prasad case and overruled the contrary interpretation of the Karnataka High Court.
The Court said Regulation 10 was introduced to help conduct joint proceedings where necessary, but it does not create any legal right for employees to demand such proceedings.
The Court further observed that banks often have employees from different cadres, departments, and disciplinary authorities. Making joint enquiries compulsory in every case could create serious administrative difficulties.
- Download Court Order PDF (This PDF is available for Premium Users Only. Click here to join premium)
