Holding

The phrase "one increment is released" means that only one increment is released from the penalty, and delegation of the enquiry to an officer of the same cadre does not violate Rule 30(3) or cause miscarriage of justice.

Summary

The petitioner, a bank official of Tulsi Gramin Bank, was charged under Section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 for dereliction of duty and, after a disciplinary inquiry, three salary increments were withheld cumulatively. On appeal, the appellate authority ordered that "one increment is released" and warned the petitioner against future misconduct. The High Court interpreted this to mean that two increments were released and one retained, but the Supreme Court held that the phrase meant only one increment was released, i.e., two increments remained withheld, and that the High Court’s construction was erroneous. The Court also examined whether the enquiry officer must be of higher rank than the delinquent officer under Rule 30(3) of the Staff Service Regulation, concluding that delegation to an officer of the same cadre does not constitute a material irregularity or miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, finding no ground for interference.

Issues considered

Whether the phrase "one increment is released" in the appellate authority's order means that only one increment is released from the penalty, with two increments still withheld.
Whether Rule 30(3) of the Staff Service Regulation requires that the enquiry officer be of higher rank than the delinquent officer.

Legislation cited

Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976s. 3

Subjects

Service LawDisciplinary InquirySalary IncrementRegional Rural Banks ActStaff Service RegulationAppellate AuthorityInterpretation of OrderDelegation of Enquiry

Judgment

A PANJKAJESH
v.
TULSI GRAMIN BANK AND ANR.

MAY 7, 1977

B [K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND
G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)

Service Law :

c Regio11al Rural Ba11k Act, 1976. ·-
Bank official--Discipli11aiy inquiry-Pu11ishme11t-Three i11crements
stopped with cumulative effect-Appellate autho1ity released 011e incre-
ment-High Court interpreted the order as· withholding one i11crement-Held,
High Court med in i11terpreting the order of appellate authority-The words
D "one increment is released" would mean that the appellate auth01ity is i11clined
to confimi the penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect
a11d thereby 011e increment was released from the pe11alty.
,.
Inquiry Officer-171ough it is always desirable that an officer higher in
ra11k tha11 the deli11quent officer should be directed to conduct an i11qui1y, by
E mere delegating the inquiry, whether the inquily officer is of the same cadre
or of higher grade than that of the delinquent, it did not cause any mate1ial
i1Tegularity, nor did it result in any injustice to the delinquent.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 11349 of 1997.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.12.96 of the Allahabad High
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 12133 of 1993.

Arvind Verma and P.N. Puri for the Petitioner.

G The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Delay condoned.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

H The petitioner was charge-sheeted for dereliction of the duty under
252
PANJKAJESH v. TULSI GRAMIN BANK 253

Section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks Act (21 of 1976). After inquiry, the A
disciplinary authority directed with-holding of three increments with
cumulative effect. On appeal, the appellate authority stated thus :
"(T)herefore, in accordance with the decision taken by the Board of
Directors, one increment is released and he is warned that in future no
such act or irregularity will be repeated, otherwise serious disciplinary B
action will be taken". When writ petition was filed by the petitioner, the
High Court in the impugued order dated December 16, 1996 made in Writ
Petition 12133/93 stated as under :

"We do not feel inclined to quash the order passed by the appellate
-• disciplinary authority who has disposed of the appeal of the C
petitioner by setting aside the order with-holding one of the three
increments and has warned the petition that in future no such
act/irregularity will be repeated by him and if it is done in that
event disciplinary action will be taken against him."

D
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the High
Court has misunderstood the operative part of the order of the appellate
authority. We find no force in the contention. The word "one increment
release" would mean that the appellate autho~ity is inclined to confirm the
penalty of imposing two increments with cummulative effect and thereby,
one increment was released from the penalty. The High Court, therefore, E
is not right in construing that two increments have been released .and one
was retained. Instead, the reverse is the ·intention. Under the circumstan-
ces, while clarifying the factual position, we do not ·find that it is a case
warranting interference.
F
The only legal question sought to be raised in the SLP is whether
under Rule 30(3) of the Staff Service Regulation, the enquiry officer has
to be higher in rank than the delinquent officer, Regulation 30(3) of the
Staff Service Regulation postulates thus :

'The enquiry under this regulation and the procedure with the G
exception of the fmal order, may be delegated in case the person
against whom proceedings are taken is an officer, to any officer
who is in a grade higher than such officer and in the case of an
employee, to any officer. For purpose of the enquiry, the officer
or employee may not engage a legal practitioner." H
254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A Thus an enquiry, under the Regulation may be delegated to a person
higher in rank than the delinquent officer, in the case of an officer. But in
this case we do not find any substantial miscarriage of justice prejudicial
to the petitioner for the· reason that though it is always desirable that an
officer higher in rank than the delinquent officer should be directed to
B conduct an enquiry, the enquiry is conducted as a delegate of the discipli-
nary authority. Therefore, the ultimate decision is to be taken by the
disciplinary authority. By mere delegating the enquiry whether the enquiry
officer is of the same cadre or of higher grade than that of the petitioner,
it did not cause any material irregularity nor resulted in any injustice to the
petitioner. Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality war-
C ranting interference. ·-
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

R.P. Petition dismissed. I-