Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the deeming fiction in Regulation 20(3)(ii) of the UCO Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 extends beyond its stated purpose so as to treat disciplinary proceedings as initiated under the disciplinary regulations, and whether the review petition disclosed any ground for interference with the earlier judgment.
Analysis: Regulation 20 of the 1979 Regulations operates in a distinct field from the disciplinary scheme under the 1976 Regulations. The deeming provision in Regulation 20(3)(ii) was created only for the purpose of the resignation and termination framework under that regulation and could not be expanded to rewrite the separate procedure for initiating disciplinary proceedings. Under the 1976 Regulations, initiation of disciplinary action requires framing and service of a charge-sheet, and a preliminary enquiry by itself is only a limited step to decide whether proceedings should be initiated. The Court further held that a legal fiction must be given full effect only within the object for which it is enacted, and statutory provisions must be read purposively and harmoniously without extending the fiction beyond its scope.
Conclusion: The deeming fiction did not convert the pre-charge-sheet stage into initiation of disciplinary proceedings under the 1976 Regulations, and no ground was made out for review.