The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated on vague or indefinite information, and there must exist a reasonable basis for the disciplinary authority to proceed against the accused. The judgment emphasized the importance of providing a reasonable opportunity for the accused to defend themselves and highlighted the principle of natural justice that materials relied upon in an inquiry should be furnished to the accused.

1. Heard Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan, counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.V.Srinivasan, learned cousnel for M/s.N.V.S. Associates for the respondent Bank.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the charge memorandum, dated 13.4.2009. The writ petition was admitted on 23.7.2009. Pending the writ petition, this court had granted an interim stay. In that order, the reason for granting interim stay was recorded as follows:

“In view of the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the impugned charge memo is flimsy and vague and also considering that for the alleged allegations mentioned in the impugned charge memo, there is no annexures or any materials to the effect that the petitioner is responsible for sending the telegrams, this court is constrained to grant the relief of interim stay.”

3. Aggrieved by the grant of stay, the respondent Bank has filed M.P.No.3 of 2009 for vacating the interim stay together with supporting affidavit, dated 07.10.2009. Though the matter was listed on several dates, finally on 7.6.2010, the main writ petition itself was directed to be posted for final hearing.

4. The facts leading to filing of the case are as follows:

The petitioner who was working as a Senior Manager of the respondent Bank at Ashok Nagar Branch, Chennai, was given a memo, dated 5.8.2008. The provocation for giving the memo was the receipt of a telegram received from the Post Office at Porur addressed to the General Manager (Personnel), Union Bank, Head Office, Nariman Point, Mumbai as well as other executives of the Bank. The telegram reads as follows:

"Selvaraj, Regional Manager, Union Bank, Madurai - Corrupt, communal, cunning, pessimist and biased culprit - CBI punishment - Recently chargesheeted to him and

G.M. for IFB branch Chennai Account - Central Vigilance inquiry already started - 20.00 crores loss to Bank - Only three months service left - Do not consider for D G M promotion - Transfer him immediately from Regional Manager Sensitive post - Save the Bank from the culprit Selvaraj - Local fellow, Matter very very serious.

Copy to RBI, ACEN VIGI Department, New Delhi

R.Govindarajulu, A I U B Association, Chennai."

Therefore, the bank presumed that the petitioner was responsible for sending such telegram. By doing so, he had maligned the image of a Senior Executive Officer. The allegations were made without any evidence or substance. Therefore, he was liable for disciplinary action. The petitioner was asked to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken.

5. The petitioner sent a reply dated 18.08.2008 denying his involvement in the matter. He also informed them that the management was nursing grouse against him as he had moved the High Court against their illegal malafide transfer. He had requested them to withdraw the memo. Notwithstanding the same, the impugned Articles of Charge was framed on 13.4.2009. In that impugned Articles of Charge, it was stated that his explanation was not convincing. The facts remains that on 26.12.2007, he had sent a telegram from the Post Office at Porur addressed to the Chairman and Managing Director, Executive Directors and General Manager (P), Central Office. Therefore, he was accused of doing the act unbecoming of a Bank Officer and that he had failed to maintain good conduct and discipline. It was also stated that the memo, dated 5.8.2008 will form a detailed statement of allegations to the Articles of Charge. The list of documents and the list of witnesses through whom the allegations are proposed to be substantiated were enclosed along with the Articles of Charge. They have listed out as many as 28 documents in support of their allegations. They also proposed to rely upon four witnesses. The names of those witnesses were also mentioned. Document No.5 related to a letter sent by the Director of Detective Eyes, Chennai addressed to the General Manager, FGMO, Chennai. Document No.28 is the