Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 883
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
A.M. Kulshrestha – Appellant
Versus
Union Bank of India and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.7039 of 2025 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.26933 of 2019)
Decided on : 20-05-2025
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR Mr. Akshat Kulshrestha, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Adv. Ms. Vani Vyas, Adv. Mr. Prakhar Singh, Adv. Mr. Tushar Srivasatav, Adv. Ms. Shreya Nair, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. O. P. Gaggar, AOR Mr. Sachindra Karn, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary Proceedings - In cases where Respondent Bank deems that consultation is necessary due to case having a vigilance angle, Respondent Bank is required to seek advice of CVC.
Headnote:
Union of India Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 - Regulation 19 - Disciplinary Proceedings - Charge-sheet - In cases where Respondent Bank deems that consultation is necessary due to case having a vigilance angle, Respondent Bank is required to seek advice of CVC - Respondent Bank has itself acknowledged that case had a vigilance angle and consultation with CVC is necessary and Respondent Bank had sought opinion of CVC - It was not open for Bank to serve charge sheet without receiving and considering first stage advice by CVC - Only ten months before date of superannuation, order of suspension was served upon appellant - This was done after 34 years of unblemished service - Once, first stage advice of CVC was called, it was duty of respondent-Bank to consider the advice and then take a decision to serve charge-sheet - Actions of respondent-Bank are malafide and arbitrary - Appellant was sought to be victimized at fag-end of his unblemished career of 34 years - High Court committed gross error by holding that Regulation 19 of 1976 Regulations was not mandatory - Almost six years have passed since superannuation of Appellant - Now, at this stage, it will be unjust to allow respondent-Bank to resume disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary proceedings including charge-sheet quashed and set aside - Though appellant will be entitled to all retiral benefits, he shall not be entitled to any back wages. (Paras 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24 and 25)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th September, 2019 passed by Division Bench of High Court of Allahabad affirming order of Single Judge dated 26th July, 2019, whereby Writ Petition preferred by the appellant seeking quashing of charge-sheet served on him pursuant to disciplinary proceedings was dismissed.
Findings of Court:
Although appellant shall not be entitled to back wages and allowances, Respondent Bank shall release all retirement benefits admissible on the basis that appellant has superannuated as of 30th June 2019. Amount of retirement benefits due to the appellant in accordance with the law, shall be paid to the appellant within three months from today.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
Leave granted.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th September, 2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad affirming the order of the Learned Single Judge dated 26th July, 2019, whereby the Writ Petition preferred by the appellant seeking quashing of the charge sheet served on him pursuant to disciplinary proceedings was dismissed.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
2. The appellant was an employee of the Union Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as “The Respondent Bank”), where he served for approximately 34 years from 1984 to 2018. He was promoted to the post of Deputy General Manager in 2016 and was due to retire on 30th June, 2019.
3. The Respondent Bank vide order dated 21st August, 2018, suspended the appellant pending further disciplinary action, alleging that the appellant, in his prior role as the Regional Head, Meerut, had adopted a very casual approach while sanctioning credit proposals in 16 accounts submitted by Mid-corporate Ghaziabad Branch. It was alleged that he sanctioned huge limits to newly incorporated firms without ensuring proper due diligence by the branch or processing officers. On 18th January, 2019, after approximately 6 months of the suspension order, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant, asking him to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him. On 27th March, 2019, another show cause notice was issued to the appellant incorporating the same omissions and commissions as alleged in the previous show cause notice, but in relation to other parties. The appellant made multiple representations to the Respondent Bank, requesting it to revoke his suspension. However, the same was of no avail.
4. The appellant preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6976 of 2019 before the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad against Order dated 21st August, 2018. The General Manager of the Respondent Bank (hereinafter referred to as, “General Manager”) submitted personal affidavit dated 23rd May, 2019 before the Hon’ble High Court justifying the delay in issuing the charge sheet as attributable to the matter being referred to the Central Vigilance Commission (hereinafter referred to as, “the CVC”) in terms of Regulation 19 of the Union of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as, “1976 Regulations”). The relevant extract of the General Manager’s affidavit is as follows:
“32. That, the IAC has viewed/regarded the case of 16 officials, including that of appellant, as a Vigilance case.
33. That since the appellant being an Executive in TEGS-VI and as also the matter Involving other executive/officials, making it a composite case, in terms of Regulation 19 of Union Bank of India Officers Employee's (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 and guidelines of the Central Vigilance Commission as circulated vide Circular NO. 07/04/15 dated 27.04.2015 (ANNEXURE CA - 4) the matter has been sent to the central Vigilance Commission for first stage advice.
34. That accordingly a request has been sent to Central Vigilance Officer (CVO) of the Bank to forward the matter on 23.04.2019 to Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) seeking their first stage. The advice of CVC is still awaited.”
The Disciplinary Authority/Executive Director of the Respondent Bank (hereinafter referred to as, “Executive Director”) submitted personal affidavit dated 13th June, 2019 before the High Court, inter alia, stating that the matter was referred to the CVC, and the charge sheet would be issued to the appellant on receipt of the CVC’s advice. The relevant extract of the Executive Director’s affidavit is as follows:
“27. That on receipt of the advice of CVC, the respondent bank shall be soon issuing Articles of Charge/Chargesheet to the appellant along with other concerned officials who are found to be involved in the matter” (emphasis added)
On 18th June, 2019, the respondent-Bank served an ante- dated charge sheet of
