TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Invalidates Finance Ministry Directive on Disciplinary Cases, Orders Reconsideration</h1> <h3>NAGARAJ SHIVARAO KARJAGI Versus SYNDICATE BANK HEAD OFFICE MANIPAL</h3> The Supreme Court held that the Ministry of Finance's directive mandating strict adherence to the Central Vigilance Commission's advice in disciplinary ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the compulsory retirement of the petitioner.2. Legality of the directive dated 21 July 1984 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India.Summary:1. Validity of the Compulsory Retirement:The petitioner, a Manager at Syndicate Bank, was subjected to a departmental inquiry for discounting a cheque of Rs. 50,000 without proper authorization and failing to take prompt action when the cheque was returned unpaid. The inquiry, conducted as per the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976, found the petitioner guilty of misconduct, including lack of integrity and conduct unbecoming of a bank officer. The disciplinary authority, following the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement. The appellate authority upheld this decision. The petitioner contended that the authorities did not independently consider his case and blindly followed the CVC's advice, which was made binding by a directive from the Ministry of Finance.2. Legality of the Directive Dated 21 July 1984:The directive from the Ministry of Finance mandated that the advice of the CVC in disciplinary cases should be strictly adhered to and not altered without the CVC's concurrence. This directive was followed by circulars from the Bank's Chairman, reinforcing the binding nature of the CVC's advice. The Supreme Court found that the directive and the circulars fettered the discretionary power of the disciplinary and appellate authorities, which should be exercised independently as per the statutory regulations. The Court held that the Ministry of Finance had no jurisdiction to issue such a directive, as it was contrary to the statutory regulations governing disciplinary matters and the quasi-judicial power of the authorities.Judgment:The Supreme Court quashed the directive issued by the Ministry of Finance and the circulars issued by the Bank. It set aside the orders of the disciplinary and appellate authorities and directed the disciplinary authority to dispose of the petitioner's case in accordance with the law. The petitioner was awarded costs of Rs. 15,000 to be paid by the Central Government. Appeal and petition allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
