The judgments relate to disciplinary proceedings that are the internal proceedings of an organization initiated against a person who is found to be violating any Rules or Regulations governing that organization.
Disciplinary proceedings can be initiated both before the matter is taken up before the court or simultaneously. Various judicial precedents have set out the procedure for these proceedings.
Will the institution of disciplinary proceedings against a person with a mental disability be considered indirect discrimination?
Is the right to be represented by an agent or counsel of one’s choice in a disciplinary proceeding an absolute right?
Does an acquittal in a criminal trial affect the disciplinary proceedings?
What is the scope of judicial review on the amount of punishment that is imposed on a person in disciplinary proceedings?
The Supreme Court has held that if disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against a person with 40 to 70 percent of mental disability, it will be considered an aspect of indirect discrimination against such person.
The Supreme Court has observed that the right to be represented by an agent or counsel of one’s choice in disciplinary proceedings depends upon the specific Rules that regulate such representation and is not absolute.
The Supreme Court has held that an acquittal in a criminal trial has no bearing and will not be relevant for disciplinary proceedings.
It has been held by the Supreme Court that the scope of judicial review of the quantum of punishment imposed in a disciplinary proceeding is limited and the courts should refrain from deciding such quantum even if the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is disproportionate.
Supreme Court of India
Chairman, State Bank Of India vs M.J.James on 16 November, 2021
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
Bench: M.R. Shah, Sanjiv Khanna
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8223 OF 2009
THE CHAIRMAN, STATE BANK OF INDIA
AND ANOTHER ..... APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
M.J. JAMES ..... RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
The Chairman, State Bank of India, Central Office, Mumbai, and the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Chennai (the appellants) in this appeal assail the order and judgment dated 09.12.2008 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dismissing their intra-court writ appeal, W.A. No. 2052/2007. The Division Bench, thereby, affirmed the order of the Single Judge in Signature Not Verified O.P No. 5527 of 1999 dated 14.03.2007, quashing the disciplinary Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2021.11.16 16:53:50 IST Reason: proceedings against Mr. M.J. James (the respondent) on the ground
of violation of Clause 22(ix)(a) of Chapter VIII of the Bank of Cochin Service Code (“the Service Code”).
2. Before we proceed further, we need to allude to the factual background necessary for the disposal of the present appeal.
On 09.02.1984, a memorandum of charges was issued to the respondent that while working as the bank manager of the Quilon branch of the Bank of Cochin from February 1978 to September 1982, he had committed grave misconduct by sanctioning advances in violation of the Head Office instructions causing financial loss to the bank. The respondent by the reply dated 30.03.1984 denied the charges stating that there was substantial increase and growth in the business of the bank when he was the manager of the Quilon branch. The deposits had increased from Rs. 20 lakh in 1978 to Rs. 1 crore in 1982, and the advances had increased from Rs. 1.5 crore in 1978 to Rs. 6 crore in 1982. As the bank manager of the Quilon branch, the respondent was aware that the top management of the bank was contemplating a deep trust in advances in view of the comfortable loanable fund availability. He had been asked by Mr. E.K. Andrew, former Chairman of the bank, to grant advances without hesitation. He had got oral instructions from Mr. E.K.Andrew
to allow disbursement/drawings from most of the large accounts.
Further, the then Director, Mr. C.B. Joseph from the Quilon branch, was personally involved as he had introduced the borrowers and most of the advances/disbursements/drawings were made on his recommendation/insistence. The respondent had claimed that the bank did not have a fool proof system of delegation of financial and other powers to the branches as powers were conferred on select managers. The respondent was given to understand by the then Chairman and Director that he was vested with adequate powers and the advances would be ratified by the Board in due course. The functioning of the branch and the advances were subjected to periodical inspections by the authorities, including the Reserve Bank of India. The respondent had never been cautioned on the pattern of business conducted by the branch. Subsequently, there were changes in the top management, and abrupt restrictions were introduced, affecting the recovery of the dues.
3. The aforesaid explanation of the respondent was not found to be satisfactory, and an inquiry was directed to be held. Mr. C.T. Joseph, a practising Advocate, was appointed as the inquiry officer. Mr.
Jimmy John was appointed as the presenting officer. The respondent claims that Mr. Jimmy John is a former advocate.
4. On 24.04.1984, the respondent wrote a letter to the Manager (Personnel Department), Bank of Cochin, that he may be permitted to engage services of Mr. F.B. Chrysostom (Syndicate Bank, Mattancherry, Cochin), the Organising Secretary of the All-India Confederation of Bank Officers Organisation, Kerala State Unit. The request was rejected. Thereafter, the respondent wrote another letter to the inquiry officer on 18.07.1984 protesting the denial of permission to be defended by Mr. F.B. Chrysostom stating that this was against all norms of natural justice and in clear violation of the Service Code. The inquiry officer, however, disagreed and passed a ruling holding that in terms of the Service Code, a charge-sheeted officer cannot be defended by an office-bearer of any association or a union except an office-bearer of an association or a union of the employees of the bank, that is, the Bank of Cochin Ltd. To enable the respondent to prepare for representation, the inquiry officer adjourned the proceedings to 06.07.1984 for the evidence of the management. On 05.09.1984, the respondent requested a long adjournment stating that he wanted to assail the order denying him
services of Mr. F.B. Chrysostom before the Board of Directors. While the request for long adjournment was declined, the inquiry officer gave the respondent two weeks to approach the Board and await their directions, making it clear that no further adjournment would be granted. On 20.09.1984, the respondent did not appear and sought postponement of proceedings for one week on medical grounds through his brother. This request was allowed, and the inquiry was posted to 28.09.1984.
5. On 28.09.1984, the respondent appeared and participated in the inquiry in which statement of witnesses of the management were recorded. The proceeding was adjourned to 06.10.1984 for the recording of defence evidence. On 06.10.1984, the respondent requested for directions to the management to produce documents as enumerated in the list. The presenting officer objected. After due consideration, the inquiry officer directed the respondent to specify the documents indicating their relevancy in the context of his defence. On 17.10.1984, the respondent again raised a request to furnish documents claiming that they were specific inasmuch as he had stated the years to which the returns relate. Further, the
respondent had his own reasons on how these documents were relevant for the inquiry.
6. The inquiry officer passed a detailed order considering each document and held that they were unnecessary and irrelevant. Thereupon, the respondent stated that he had no witnesses to examine, or any other evidence to be adduced, and abruptly stood up and walked out without signing the order sheet.
7. In his detailed report dated 14.01.1983, the inquiry officer referred to the irregularities committed and held that the respondent had made unauthorized advances beyond his discretionary powers without the sanction of the Head Office. In fact, the respondent had admitted violation of the Head Office instructions and the advances made were unauthorized. All the charges were held to be proved.
Download complete judgement by clicking on the button given below >>
Disciplinary proceedings pertain to the internal proceedings of an organization and are governed by the specific Rules and Regulations of that organization. While there are no generic codified laws for disciplinary proceedings in India, the law surrounding it has evolved through judicial precedents.
An employee against whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated has the right to be represented by a lawyer in such proceedings. Disciplinary proceedings tend to be complicated since they do not take place in a court of law and are, therefore, held in the absence of people who lack legal expertise. Thus, it is significant to engage the services of a lawyer who can ensure an effective strategy for your representation in the case and strengthen your case.