The imposition of penalties for misconduct must align with the regulations in effect at the time and require clear definitions.

JUDGMENT :

SYAM KUMAR V.M., J.

1. This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 17.01.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.1927 of 2012. Appellants were the respondents in the W.P.(C).

2. The W.P.(C) was filed by the respondent, an officer of the 3^rd appellant Bank, seeking to quash Exts.P1 and P3 orders, whereby a major penalty was imposed on him for the alleged misconduct. The crux of the allegation against him was that he had filed a W.P.(C) before this Court, exhibiting therewith the transcript of an interview (Ext.P8), which had allegedly been surreptitiously recorded by him using his mobile phone while the interview was on. The major penalty imposed on him was a reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay by 6 stages for a period of 5 years with cumulative effect. Contending inter alia that the punishment prescribed as per the relevant Regulation in the South Malabar Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2001 (for short '2001 Regulations'), was only a reduction to a lower grade or post or a lower scale in timescale and the punishment imposed on him was grossly disproportionate that too while an appeal filed by him was pending, the respondent had filed the W.P. (C) seeking the following reliefs:

“i) issue a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P1 and Ext.P3 orders and to quash Ext.P1 and Ext.P3 in the interest of justice ;

ii) declare that the suspension order passed against the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal, unjust and against the provisions of Law, Regulations and Rules ;

iii) declare that the inquiry conducted and the Inquiry Report filed against the petitioner herein are biased vitiated illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice ;

iv) declare and order that the petitioner is entitled to his period of suspension to be treated as duty with salary and all other service benefits ;

v) Further declare that production of Ext.P8 transcript of the audio-recorded version of the interview in W.P.(C) No.20987 of 2008 before this Hon'ble High Court is not an unauthorised publication as alleged by the respondents ;

vi) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction commanding the 2^nd respondent to dispose Ext.P2, Ext.P17 and Ext.P18 appeals filed by the petitioner within a time frame after giving the petitioner an opportunity for being heard ;

vii) To grant any other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case ;

viii) Reliefs and costs.”

3. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, allowed the Writ Petition and set aside Exts.P1 and P3 orders issued against the respondent. It was further directed that all the consequential benefits to the respondent shall be calculated and disbursed to him within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment. Aggrieved by the said judgment, appellants, the Bank and its functionaries have filed this Writ Appeal.

4. Heard Sri. Jawahar Jose, Advocate for the appellants and Sri.Prasant Sugathan, Advocate for the respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the respondent had admitted that he had audio-recorded the interview proceedings without obtaining any prior permission. It is submitted that paragraph 18 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules of 2001 Regulations stipulate that every employee shall maintain strict secrecy re