Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Sanjib Banerjee, J.
Soumya Datta & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State Bank of India & Ors. - Respondents
GA No. 1656 of 2013, GA No. 979 of 2013 and WP No. 1065 of 2012
Decided On : 06-01-2014
For the Petitioners:S. Majumder, Advocate
For the Respondents:L.K. Gupta, Sr. Adv., A.K. Routh and S. Pal Chowdhuri, Advocates
A mere reading of the statement of imputation of misconduct cannot be said that there could not have been any possibility of any misbehaviour, misdemeanor, or other conduct covered by Rules 50(4), 50(5), or 50(6) of the relevant rules at the time of the demonstration.
Headnote:
BANKING REGULATION ACT - SECTION 50(4), 50(5), 50(6) - STATE BANK OF INDIA OFFICERS SERVICE RULES - RULE 50(4), 50(5), 50(6) - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - MALA FIDES - PROTEST BY OFFICERS - LEGALITY - SUMMARY DISMISSAL - COURT'S INTERFERENCE - SCOPE - The Court held that a mere reading of the statement of imputation of misconduct cannot be said that there could not have been any possibility of any misbehaviour, misdemeanor, or other conduct covered by Rules 50(4), 50(5), or 50(6) of the relevant rules at the time of the demonstration of August 28, 2012, which had admittedly been instigated by the petitioner no. 1 and whereat the petitioner no. 1 undoubtedly participated.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an office-bearer of the State Bank of India officers association, challenged a notice dated September 27, 2012, the accompanying articles of charge levelled against him, and the statement of imputation of misconduct appended to the letter on the ground that the action initiated was mala fide and the material did not make out any case of misconduct within the meaning of the applicable rules.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the grounds for assailing a notice of the kind challenged in the present proceedings are limited and such grounds are ordinarily restricted to assessing the authority exercised in issuing the notice, as to whether the ingredients of any misconduct are made out in the notice, and as to whether the notice is mala fide. The Court further held that the bare-boned charge of mala fides may subsequently be fleshed out with facts; but it does not appear either from the notice itself or from the surrounding circumstances as relied upon by the petitioners to be an abject abuse of power that would prompt the Court to interdict the proposed action at the outset.
Issues: Whether the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were mala fide? Whether the impugned letter and the documents appended thereto made out a case for protracted proceedings to be initiated against the petitioner no. 1.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the charge of mala fides was not weighty enough to quash the disciplinary proceedings at the threshold and that the matter hinged on the nature and extent of unbecoming conduct attributed to the petitioner no. 1 in the first and second counts detailed in the statement of imputation of misconduct. The Court further held that it was impossible to affirmatively establish, solely on the basis of such a statement, that the petitioner no. 1 participated in a peaceful demonstration which could never have lowered the bank's image or otherwise tarnished its reputation.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition and allowed the bank to take whatever steps it may be entitled to in accordance with law.
Sanjib Banerjee, J.
The first petitioner, an office-bearer of the second petitioner officers association of the State Bank of India, challenges a notice dated September 27, 2012, the accompanying articles of charge levelled against such employee and the statement of imputation of misconduct appended to the letter on the ground that the action initiated is mala fide and the material does not make out any case of misconduct within the meaning of the applicable rules.
2. The State Bank of India apparently proposes to open its bank counters to its constituents on Sundays. The petitioner association caused a letter to be issued on August 28, 2012 to the local head office that a demonstration would be held at 2 pm on that day at such office to protest the move of the bank to keep its branches open on Sundays. Though the bank claims that the letter was received subsequent to the demonstration being held, nothing turns on such aspect of the matter. Demonstrations are said to have been simultaneously held at various local head offices and other branches of the bank all over the country. The petitioners say that similar notices were issued to at least 14 office-bearers of the officers associations in different regions and most of them have subsequently been withdrawn. One of the notices was withdrawn on the ground that the notice had been nominated as the officers representative on the board of the bank. Another similar notice has been set aside in proceedings instituted before the Madras High Court challenging the same. The Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court has been placed by the petitioners.
3. The petitioners refer to a written warning of August 31, 2012 issued by the bank requiring the petitioners to refrain from indulging in the kind of activities conducted on August 28, 2012. The petitioners draw attention to a subsequent notice of September 22, 2012 complaining of the demonstration on August 28, 2012 being in violation of AD of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949. The petitioners claim that the object of the exercise, culminating in the issuance of the impugned notice of September 27, 2012 to the petitioner no.1, is to send a stern message to the officers that any kind of protest by the officers against any management decision would not be tolerated and would be dealt with heavily. The petitioners say that an example has been sought to be made out of the petitioner no.1 to coerce the officers of the bank to toe the management line. The petitioners place excerpts from a speech contemporaneously delivered by the then chairman of the bank to the effect that the rank and file of the officers would not be dealt with oppressively and vindictively by the bank as a consequence of the protest but that some action would follow. The petitioners interpret the statement to imply that the bank would oppress and be vindictive against such office-bearers of the association who are regarded as the masterminds of the lightning protest of August 28, 2012.
4. The articles of charge appended to the letter of September 27, 2012 allege that the petitioner no.1 "failed to discharge his duties with utmost devotion and diligence, failed to take all possible steps to protect the interest of the Bank and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Bank official (and that he) instigated other officers to commit misconduct by not maintaining good conduct and discipline." The articles refer to the violation of Rules 50(4), 50(5) and 50(6) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules. The statement of imputation of misconduct against the petitioner no.1 makes out three cases of perceived improper behaviour. The petitioner no.1 is accused of having "instigated officers of the bank to hold demonstrations within the Banks premises/compound participated in these demonstrations and also shouted slogans (which) disturbed the peace and there was hindrance in Banks working and disturbance in the regular business activity." The second count of charge on pe
