9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Competence and jurisdiction of a retired official to conduct and conclude a departmental enquiry. 2. Applicability of the de facto doctrine to the actions of the retired Enquiry Officer. 3. Validity of the order of punishment imposed by the retired Enquiry Officer. 4. Consequences of the High Court's order regarding payment of consequential benefits. Detailed Analysis: 1. Competence and Jurisdiction of a Retired Official: The primary issue was whether a departmental enquiry conducted by a bank official remains valid if the official continues the enquiry after his superannuation. The High Court of Karnataka held that such an enquiry is incompetent and without jurisdiction, rendering it null and void. The respondent, while serving as a Relieving Head Cashier, was involved in a case of submitting a spurious travel receipt for reimbursement. A departmental enquiry was initiated, and Shri U.B. Menon, who was appointed as the Enquiry Officer, continued the enquiry even after his retirement on January 31, 1979. The respondent did not object to Menon's continued role during the enquiry or the subsequent appeal but raised the objection for the first time in a writ petition. The High Court concluded that post-retirement, Menon had no jurisdiction to impose punishment, making the order of discharge incompetent and without jurisdiction. 2. Applicability of the De Facto Doctrine: The appellant argued that the de facto doctrine should apply, validating Menon's actions despite his retirement. The Court explained that the de facto doctrine applies to officers who, despite a defective appointment, perform duties within their assumed official authority. However, it does not apply to total intruders or usurpers. Menon, being a retired official and not a holder of any office, could not invoke the de facto doctrine. The Court emphasized that the doctrine does not rescue actions taken by someone who is not in possession of an office but is merely an ex-employee of the bank. 3. Validity of the Order of Punishment: The Court held that the absence of bias or prejudice does not cure the defect of incompetence. The punishment imposed by an unauthorized person collapses the entire foundation of the disciplinary proceedings. The Court rejected the appellant's argument that the High Court should have remanded the matter to a competent Disciplinary Authority to proceed from the stage of the Enquiry Officer's report. Given that the respondent had retired in 1986, the Court found no useful purpose in adopting such a procedure. 4. Consequences of the High Court's Order on Consequential Benefits: The Court acknowledged the appellant's contention that the respondent succeeded on a technicality raised belatedly. It agreed that if the objection had been raised earlier, the appellant could have rectified the situation by appointing a competent officer. The Court noted that the punishment was quashed not on merits but due to the technical plea of incompetence. Therefore, the High Court's order directing payment of "all consequential benefits" was modified. The Court ordered that the respondent be paid "50% of the consequential benefits" instead of all, considering the special facts and circumstances. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to quash the order of punishment due to the incompetence of the retired Enquiry Officer. However, it modified the High Court's order regarding the payment of consequential benefits, directing that only 50% of the benefits be paid to the respondent. The appeal was allowed to this extent, with each party bearing its own costs.
|
