Canara Bank Regulations | Joint Disciplinary Proceedings Not Necessary When Multiple Officers Involved In Same Case : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has ruled that a separate disciplinary proceeding is permissible against a delinquent bank employee as per Regulation 10 of Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, despite multiple officers are involved in a delinquent act, as there's no mandate to hold a joint disciplinary proceeding where more than one officer is involved.

A bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice Vijay Bishnoi set aside that part of the Karnataka High Court Division Bench order, which held that failure to hold a joint/common proceeding against multiple officers involved in a delinquent act would vitiate the disciplinary proceedings. Instead, the Court endorsed the High Court's Single Judge's observation to the extent where it held that:

“Regulation 10 does not vest any power or right in the hands of a delinquent officer/employee to either insist or ask for joint or common proceedings to be held. There is no such corresponding right vested in an employee”, and that “[f]ailure to hold a joint enquiry [does not vitiate] the disciplinary proceedings already initiated against an individual officer.”

Background

The dispute arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated by the bank against officers allegedly connected with the same misconduct. One of the principal legal questions before the Court was whether Regulation 10 obligated the bank to conduct a common enquiry against all delinquent officers together.

Regulation 10 provides that where two or more officer employees are concerned in a case, the competent disciplinary authority “may” direct that disciplinary proceedings against all of them be taken in a common proceeding.

The employees argued that once several officers were involved in the same transaction, the bank was bound to hold a joint disciplinary enquiry. It was contended that separate proceedings could lead to inconsistencies and prejudice to employees.

The issue had led to conflicting judicial opinions. The Karnataka High Court in Arun Kumar Alva v. Vijaya Bank, 2006 had interpreted the provision as mandatory, effectively treating the word “may” as “shall.” However, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in T. Baba Prasad v. Andhra Bank, 2011 had taken the opposite view, holding that the provision merely enabled the bank to hold common proceedings where appropriate.

The Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court, in this case, held the word 'may' to be discretionary, thereby vesting a discretion with the disciplinary committee to either proceed jointly against multiple officers or to hold a separate proceeding against the delinquent officer. However, the Division Bench held otherwise, interpreting 'may' as 'shall', prompting the Canara Bank to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision

Partly allowing the appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Bhatti approved the reasoning adopted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in T. Baba Prasad and overruled the contrary Karnataka High Court interpretation.

The Court noted that Regulation 10 was enacted to facilitate the holding of joint proceedings where necessary, but it did not create any enforceable right in favour of employees to demand such proceedings.

According to the Court, banks often deal with employees belonging to different cadres, departments, and disciplinary hierarchies. In such circumstances, insisting on a compulsory common enquiry could create serious administrative complications.

“Similarly, the disciplinary authority may be different, such as Assistant General Manager, Regional Manager, Chief General Manager or Executive Director, to initiate disciplinary action depending upon the cadre of the charge-sheeted employee. We affirm the view taken by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in T. Baba Prasad (supra). Hence, we set aside the view taken in the impugned judgment with respect to Regulation 10 of the 1976 Regulations.”, the court observed.

Cause Title: CANARA BANK VERSUS PREM LATHA UPPAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 497

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Naveen R. Nath, Sr. Adv. Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, AOR Ms. Lalit Mohini Bhat, Adv. Mr. Rahul Jain, Adv. Mr. Siddrth Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Disha Gupta, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR Mr. Anchit Singla, Adv. Mr. Narveer Yadav, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Sati, Adv. Dr. Anthony Raju, Adv. Mr. Vineeth B Prasad, Adv.