The main legal point established in the judgment is that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and the sealed cover procedure are crucial factors in determining the promotion and transfer of a bank employee. The court emphasized the need for a charge sheet to be issued for disciplinary proceedings to be considered pending, and it highlighted the limited scope of judicial review in matters of transfer of a government servant.

1. The petitioner in all these three writ petitions is one and the same person. The first writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging an order of the respondent Bank dated 24.04.2009, wherein and by which, he was informed that his promotion to the post of MMGS-III (Middle Management Grade Scale III) cannot be considered in the light of the light of the existing guidelines of the Bank/Government. He also sought for consequential direction to implement the order of promotion dated 22.05.2007.

2. It transpires that before filing the present writ petition, the petitioner had filed several writ petitions and contempt petitions. By an order dated 17.06.1998, the petitioner's services were terminated. He filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.No.8690 of 1998, challenging the order of termination. He also sought for an interim stay of the order, which was also granted by this Court. When he found that the said order was not obeyed, he filed contempt petition No.402 of 1998. The writ petition and the contempt petition were heard together and this Court by an order dated 22.12.1998 allowed the writ petition and directed re-instatement with continuity of service and attendant benefits. But with reference to the contempt petition, the Court found that the respondents had not committed any contempt. Therefore, the contempt petition was dismissed. The said decision dated 22.12.1998 came to be subsequently reported in 2002(2)L.W.128.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent Bank filed a writ appeal being W.A.No.445 of 1999. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed W.P.No.757 of 1997, seeking for a direction to the respondents, not to act upon the report sent by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai and also to confirm his appointment with retrospective effect and to consider him for promotion to the next grade in the Bank. The writ appeal as well as the writ petition came to be heard by a Division Bench. The Division Bench by a final order dated 09.09.2003 dismissed the writ appeal and closed the writ petition.

4. Since the order of the Division Bench was not implemented, the petitioner again filed a contempt petition being Cont.P.No.354 of 2004. The Division Bench held though there was no contempt, but nevertheless ordered costs of Rs.1,00,000/-, which was in turn was agreed to be remitted to the Coastal Calamity Fund of the Tamil Nadu State Government on the consent of the counsel for the petitioner.

5. It was after the disposal of these proceedings, the petitioner was promoted from the post of MMG Scale II to MMG Scale III by proceedings dated 22.05.2007. The name of the petitioner is found in the Annexure as Sl.No.78 and it was issued by the General Manager P & IRM Department, Kolkata from the Kolkata Office. But in the same communication, the branches and sub-ordinate officers were informed as follows:-

"Branches/Offices are requested to note that the above promotions are subject to the fact that the concerned officers are not suffering from any disqualifications owing to pendency of charge-sheet and/or criminal prosecution against them or any wrong declaration furnished by them."

6. Even before the order could be issued to the petitioner, he was placed under suspension by an order dated 19.05.2007. Therefore, the promotion order was not given effect to. Pursuant to the suspension, the petitioner was issued with charge memo dated 23.01.2008 alleging certain irregularities, omissions and commissions committed by him, while he was functioning as Manager of Navinipatti Branch from 11.08.2005 to 18.05.2007. Subsequent to the explanation furnished by the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted in terms of UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976. The enquiry was conducted by the Senior Manager, Tiruchirapalli Main Branch. In the enquiry report, it was found that while allegations 1(a), 1(c) and 2 to 4 were proved and allegation 1(b) alone was held partially proved.

7. On the basis