Separate disciplinary proceedings are justified when charges against officers are distinct and involve different disciplinary authorities, even if similar allegations exist.

Order :

For convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided in the following parts:-

INDEX

Factual Matrix and relief claimed in this petition:-

1. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

“(1) Quash and set aside the charge sheets dated 16.08.2024 issued against the petitioners as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice.

(2) Direct the respondents to invoke Clause 10 of the Bank of Baroda Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976, and conduct common disciplinary proceedings for all the officers involved in the IFILC Business Development case.

(3) Direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioners to their positions with immediate effect and quash the suspension order dated 11.03.2024.

(4) Direct the respondents to provide access to all documents, evidence, and CCTV footage relied upon in framing the charges against the petitioners and required by the petitioner for their proper defence.

(5) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(6) Pending the final disposal of this writ petition, the petitioners respectfully seek interim relief in the form of an order staying the operation of the charge sheets dated 16.08.2024 and the suspension orders dated 11.03.2024 issued against the petitioners.

Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in favour of the petitioners may kindly be passed.”

2. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the charge-sheets dated 16.08.2024, on the ground that the same have been issued in contravention of the provisions contained under Regulations 6.3 and 10 of the Bank of Baroda Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the Regulations of 1976”) and an alternative prayer has been made for issuing direction for conducting common disciplinary proceedings against all the Officers involved in IFLIC Business Development Case.

Submissions by counsel for the petitioners:-

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for similar charges, four different charge-sheets have been issued to four Delinquent Officers, including the petitioners and one Abhishek Agarwal. Learned counsel submits that now the respondents are conducting four different enquiries against all the four persons, which is in violation of the mandate, contained under Regulation 10 of the Regulations of 1976. Learned counsel submits that as per the provisions described under the Regulation 10 of the Regulations of 1976, where two or more Officer employees are concerned in a case, the Authority competent in order to impose major penalty on all such Officer employees, may make an order directing that the disciplinary proceedings against all of them may be taken in a common proceeding. While in the instant case, different proceedings have been initiated against all the four persons, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that as per the provisions, contained under the Regulation 6.3 of the Regulations of 1976, whenever any enquiry is proposed by the Disciplinary Authority, it is expected from the said authority to frame definite charges against the Officer employee with statement of allegations, list of documents along-with list of witnesses etc. Learned counsel submits that while serving charge- sheets upon the petitioners, the documents were not furnished, therefore, until and unless the documents are furnished to the petitioners, the Disciplinary Authority/Enquiry Officer cannot proceed against the petitioners. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex