TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (3) TMI 656
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eave there against. One of the questions which arose for consideration before this Court was whether in absence of any chargesheet having been issued, the disciplinary proceedings could be said to have been initiated in view of the decisions of this Court in Union of India etc. etc. v. K.V. Jankiraman, etc. etc. [AIR 1991 SC 2010], Union of India and Ors. v. Sangram Keshari Nayak [2007 (6) SCALE 348] and Coal India Ltd. and Ors. v. Saroj Kumar Mishra [2007 (5) SCALE 724]. 5. When the said question was raised, the 1979 Regulations were not before us. This Court asked the learned counsel to handover the regulations by the next day. It was not complied with. However, on 18.05.2007 when the judgment was to be delivered, a prayer was made to defer the pronouncement of the judgment so as to enable the appellants to place the regulations. The said prayer was declined and the judgment was pronounced. It is in the aforementioned factual backdrop, this review petition has been filed. 6. In the review application, the petitioner inter alia seeks to bring to our notice the relevant provisions of the 1979 Regulations so as to contend that by reason thereof, a legal fiction has been created t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it necessary so to do appoint under subregulation (2) an Inquiring Authority for the purpose: Provided that it may not be necessary to hold an inquiry in respect of the articles of charge admitted by the officer employee in his written statement but shall be necessary to record its findings on each such charge. (5) The Disciplinary Authority shall, where it is not the inquiring authority, forward to the inquiring authority: (i) a copy of the articles of charges and statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour;" 9. In exercise of the same power, the Board of Directors have also framed the UCO Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (for short "the 1976 Conduct Regulations") providing for the code of conduct for the bank officers. Any breach in terms of Regulation 24 of the 1976 Conduct Regulations is deemed to constitute a misconduct punishable under the 1976 Regulations. 10. The 1979 Regulations were also framed under the same power by the Board of Directors of the Bank. The 1979 Regulations deal with different terms of the employment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; (e) Where an officer employee whose services have been terminated and who has been paid an amount of three months emoluments in lieu of notice and on appeal his termination is cancelled, the amount paid to him in lieu of notice shall be adjusted against the salary that he would have earned, had his services not been terminated and he shall continue the Bank's employment on same terms and conditions as if the order of termination had not been passed at all. (f) An officer employee whose services are terminated under sub-regulation (a) above shall be paid Gratuity, Provident Fund including employer's contribution and all other dues that may be admissible to him as per rules not withstanding the years of service rendered. (g) Nothing contained hereinabove will affect the Bank's right to retire an officer employee under Regulation 19(1). 2. An officer shall not leave or discontinue his service in the Bank without first giving a notice in writing of his intention to leave or discontinue his service or resign. The period of notice required shall be 3 months and shall be submitted to the competent au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... discontinue or resign from service without the prior approval in writing of the competent authority and a notice or resignation given by such an officer before or during the disciplinary proceedings shall not take effect unless it is accepted by the competent authority. Clause (ii) of Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 20 must be considered from that aspect of the matter. It raises a legal fiction. Such legal fiction has been raised only for the purpose of "this Regulation" and for no other, which would mean Regulation 20(1). The final orders which are required to be passed by the competent authority although indisputably would be in relation to the disciplinary proceedings but evidently it is for the purpose of accepting resignation or leaving or discontinuing of the service by the employee concerned or grant of approval thereof. Clause (ii) of Subregulation (3) of Regulation 20 in effect and substance acts as a proviso to Clause (i) thereof. 15. Clause (iii) of Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 20 is an independent provision. It provides for continuation of the disciplinary proceedings. Such disciplinary proceedings indisputably for the purpose of applicability of Subregulation (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....would be attracted only for the purpose of termination of service. Had the intention of the regulation making authority been that the legal fiction created under Clause (ii) of Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 20 would cover both Clauses (i) and (iii), the same should have been placed only after Clause (iii). In such an event, Clause (ii) of Subregulation (3) of Regulation 20 should have been differently worded. Some non-obstante clause would have been provided for making an exception to the applicability of the 1976 Regulations when a legal fiction is created, although it is required to be taken to the logical conclusion [See East End Dwellings Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough Council, [(1951) 2 All.E.R 587], but the same would not mean that the effect thereof would be extended so as to transgress the scope and purport for which it is created. In UCO Bank and Anr. v. Rajinder Lal Capoor [(2007) 6 SCC 694] it has been held: "We are not oblivious of the legal principle that a legal fiction must be given full effect but it is equally well-settled that the scope and ambit of a le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; 51. Barak in his exhaustive work on 'Purposive Construction' explains various meanings attributed to the term "purpose". It would be in the fitness of discussion to refer to Purposive Construction in Barak's words: "Hart and Sachs also appear to treat "purpose" as a subjective concept. I say "appear" because, although Hart and Sachs claim that the interpreter should imagine himself or herself in the legislator's shoes, they introduce two elements of objectivity: First, the interpreter should assume that the legislature is composed of reasonable people seeking to achieve reasonable goals in a reasonable manner; and second, the interpreter should accept the non-rebuttable presumption that members of the legislative body sought to fulfill their constitutional duties in good faith. This formulation allows the interpreter to inquire not into the subjective intent of the author, but rather the intent the author would have had, had he or she acted reasonably." (Aharon Barak, Purposive Interpretation in Law, (2007) at pg. 87) ....