Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN & K. RAVICHANDRABAABU, JJ.
G. Arasukumar & Others - Petitioners
Versus
State Bank of India, rep. by its Assistant General Manager (Disciplinary Authority) - Respondents
W.A.Nos. 336, 356 & 357 of 2008, 1657 of 2014, 224 & 259 of 2015 & W.P.No. 3267 of 2015 & Connected M.Ps.
Decided On : 01-07-2015
Civil Laws – Misconduct – Charge Memos – Challenged – Though there are six writ appeals and one writ petition, all of them arise out of two sets of disciplinary proceedings initiated by the management of the State Bank of India against a person working as a Special Assistant in the Chennai Branch of the bank and two of his colleagues, who are office bearers of a trade union of employees of the bank. – Held, Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.4.2002 shows that the acts complained of under clause 5 are stated to be "gross misconduct". – But, all the acts listed in clause 7 are defined as minor misconduct. Therefore, all the four charges are traced in paragraph 2 of the charge memo to two acts of major misconduct and three acts of minor misconduct. Once the order of the learned Judge in W.P.No.10361 of 2014 is upheld, the charge of gross misconduct traceable to clause 5(d) and 5(j) goes. – Then, what would remain are only those acts of misconduct which fall within the definition of the expression minor misconduct under clause 7. – Clause 8 of the Memorandum of Settlement provides only for three types of penalties, namely (i) warning or censure, (ii) entry of adverse remark, and (iii) stoppage of increment for a period not longer than six months. – Therefore, the consequences of our upholding the order of the learned Judge would be that the disciplinary proceedings may survive for a fresh consideration only for the minor acts of misconduct indicated in clauses 7(b), 7(c) and 7(e), for which only a minor penalty under clause (8) could be imposed. – Court is actually left with two options, namely either to uphold the findings in the ex parte enquiry in relation to these minor acts of misconduct and to allow Bank to impose any one of the minor penalties as stipulated in clause (8). – Court could ourselves impose a minor penalty taking into consideration the bad blood that has run between this trade union and the management. – Court would prefer to exercise the first option, namely that of merely upholding the findings of the enquiry officer in relation to charges that are not quashed by the learned Judge, namely those charges that fall under clauses 7(b), 7(c) and 7(e) of the Memorandum of Settlement and allow the Bank to impose any of the minor penalties that they can impose under clause (8). – This is in view of the settled position in law, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh [2013 (9) SCC 372], which was later referred to and followed in Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors v. S.Vasanthi – Writ Appeal Allowed
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
1. Though there are six writ appeals and one writ petition, all of them arise out of two sets of disciplinary proceedings initiated by the management of the State Bank of India against a person working as a Special Assistant in the Chennai Branch of the bank and two of his colleagues, who are office bearers of a trade union of employees of the bank.
2. Heard Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel for the management of the bank and Mr.Balan Haridas, learned counsel for the employees.
3. These six writ appeals and the writ petition, for the purpose of easy appreciation can be categorized as follows :
(i) W.A.Nos.336, 356 and 357 of 2008 arising out the dismissal of writ petitions filed by the president (M.V.Thangaswamy), general secretary (S.Gunasekar) and treasurer (G.Arasukumar) of the State Bank of India Ambedkar Trade Union (for short Ambedkar Union) challenging the charge memos issued against them in March/April 2007.
(ii) W.A.No.1657 of 2014 filed by the management of the State Bank of India (for short SBI) questioning the correctness of the order passed in a writ petition whereby a few charges framed against the general secretary of the trade union were set aside by a learned Judge.
(iii) W.A.No.224 of 2015 filed by the management challenging an interim order of injunction granted in favour of the general secretary of the Ambedkar Union restraining the SBI from giving effect to the order of dismissal from service.
(iv) W.A.No.259 of 2015 filed by the general secretary of the Ambedkar Union against the dismissal of his writ petition challenging the rejection of his applications for the grant of sick leave; and
(v) W.P.No.3267 of 2015 filed by the general secretary of the Ambedkar Union against the order of dismissal from service.
4. All the six writ appeals and the writ petition can also be grouped subject-wise as follows:
(i) three writ appeals arising out of a challenge to the charge memos issued against three office bearers of the Ambedkar Union, in the year 2007 where the disciplinary proceedings could not take off due to the pendency of the proceedings
(ii) one writ appeal arising out of an order in the writ petition whereby some of the charges framed against the General Secretary of the Ambedkar Union were quashed
(iii) one writ appeal arising out of the rejection of sick leave applications and
(iv) one writ petition and one writ appeal arising out of the dismissal of the general secretary of the Ambedkar Union.
5. In view of the fact that the three writ appeals arise out of a challenge to the charge memos, issued way back in the year 2007, we shall take up those three writ appeals first for disposal.
W.A.Nos. 336, 356 and 357 of 2008 :
6. The three Appellants are employees of the State Bank of India which is the sole Respondent in all the appeals. The Appellant in W.A.336 of 2008 (G.Arasukumar) was at the relevant time employed as a Senior Assistant in the Anna Salai Branch of the State Bank of India. At that time he was the treasurer of Ambedkar Union.
7. The Appellant in W.A.356 of 2008 (S.Gunasekar) was at the relevant time working as Special Assistant at the Chennai Main branch. He was also the General Secretary of the Ambedkar Union.
8. The Appellant in W.A 357 of 2008 (M.V.Thangaswamy) was at the relevant time working as Deputy Manager at the Overseas Branch of the SBI holding the rank of Officer MMG – Scale II. He was the President of the Ambedkar Union.
9. These three Appellants through their trade union sent a letter to the Governor of Reserve Bank of India, Chennai to take suitable action against the then Chief General Manager, SBI Chennai Circle (Pradip Chaudhary) for his gross negligence by a letter dated 2.5.2006. In that letter, they informed the RBI as follows :
“I understand that a sum of Rs.30 lakhs (Rupees Thirty Lakhs) six bundles of Rs.500/- denomination was missing from
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
