Delhi High Court
Ritu Prakash Singh vs National Housing Bank & Ors on 10 January, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 10, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 11493/2017
RITU PRAKASH SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.S. D. Singh, Mr. Rahul Kumar
Singh and Mr. Jitender Singh, Advocates
Versus
NATIONAL HOUSING BANK & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Sanjay Kapur and Ms. Megha
Karnwal, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
CM No.4686/2017 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 11493/2017
1. Petitioner who was employed as an Assistant General Manager
(SMG-Scale-V) with respondent-bank, has been suspended vide
impugned order of 15th December, 2017 upon finding that she did not
have the requisite experience at the time of her appointment. Preceding
the impugned suspension, an inquiry was held by the respondent-bank
and the matter is pending before the Disciplinary Authority for
proceeding further against petitioner.
2. Challenge to the impugned order by learned counsel for petitioner
is on the ground that the General Manager of respondent-bank is not a
Competent Authority to suspend petitioner. To submit so, attention of
this Court is drawn to National Housing Bank (Officers') Service
Regulations, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'Service Regulations of
1997') (Annexure P/7) to point out that Competent Authority is the
Chairman, whereas suspension order has been issued by the General
Manager. So, it is submitted that impugned suspension order ought to be
set aside.
3. On the contrary, learned Senior Counsel for respondent- bank
submits that the Service Regulations of 1997 govern the matters relating
to appointment, promotion, leave rules, medical scheme, conveyance
scheme, residential accommodation scheme and other perquisites and not
the disciplinary matters. It is pointed out that the Service Regulations of
1997 do not repeal the National Housing Bank Employees' Regulations,
1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations of 1994') (Annexure P/6)
which pertains to disciplinary matters. It is pointed out that National
Housing Bank Employees (Discipline and Appeals) Regulations, 1994
notified in the year 1995 deal with the suspension of an employee and as
per these Regulations, the Competent Authority in case of petitioner is the
General Manager. To submit so, attention of this Court is drawn to the
Schedule in Chapter-IV of Regulations of 1994. Learned Senior Counsel
for respondent-bank has also drawn attention of this Court to the
respondent's Board Resolution of 3rd February, 1995 vide which
Competent Authority under the National Housing Bank Employees'
(Conduct) Regulations, 1994 and National Housing Bank Employees'
(Discipline and Appeals) Regulations, 1994 is defined and as per this
Board Resolution, the Competent Authority to place an employee under
suspension is the Disciplinary Authority. It is thus submitted that the
impugned suspension order has been issued by the duly Competent
Authority and thus this petition deserves dismissal.
4. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned suspension order, the
Regulations of 1994 (Annexure P/6) and Service Regulation of 1997
(Annexure P/7), I find that in disciplinary matters the applicable
Regulations are the Regulations of 1994 (Annexure P/6) and not the
Service Regulations of 1997 (Annexure P/7). It is pertinent to note that
Service Regulations of 1997 (Annexure P/7) do not relate to disciplinary
matters and the Regulations of 1994 (Annexure P/6) have not been
repealed by the Service Regulations of 1997 (Annexure P/7). In the
considered opinion of this Court the impugned order does not suffer from
any infirmity and hence this petition is dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 10, 2018
skb
