Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
Arjun Bathini – Appellant
Versus
Union Bank of India – Respondent
W.P. No. 32572 of 2022
Decided on : 27-10-2022
Mandamus - Disciplinary Proceedings - Union Bank of India Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 - Failure to maintain good conduct and discipline, Doing acts unbecoming of an Officer employee - Regulation 6, Regulation 3, Regulation 24 - The court directed the 3rd Respondent to reconsider Petitioner’s reply and take a decision in accordance with law, duly considering the observations of the Apex Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Senior Manager at Union Bank of India, was issued Articles of Charge for forwarding derogatory messages and conducting unauthorized activities. The petitioner denied the allegations and challenged the vague charges, citing lack of evidence and violation of natural justice principles.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the charges to be vague and lacking specific details, violating the principles of natural justice. It directed the 3rd Respondent to reconsider the petitioner's reply and make a decision in accordance with law.
Issues: Vagueness of charges, Violation of natural justice principles, Reconsideration of petitioner's reply
Ratio Decidendi: Charges in disciplinary proceedings must be specific and fair, adhering to natural justice principles. Failure to provide specific charges violates the right to a fair enquiry.
Final Decision: The court directed the 3rd Respondent to reconsider the petitioner’s reply and make a decision in accordance with law, duly considering the observations of the Apex Court.
ORDER :
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. This writ petition is filed to issue writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 3rdRespondent in issuing the Articles of Charge in Ref. No. CO:ERD: OS: MISC:341:2022 dated 01-08-2022 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violation of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India besides being in violation of Service Rules and Union Bank of India Officers Employee’s (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 and to set aside the Articles of Charge in Ref. No. CO: ERD: OS: MISC:341:2022 dated 01-08-2022 issued by the 3rd Respondent.
3) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:
a) The petitioner has joined the respondent bank on 16.04.2000 as Senior Manager, MIMGS-III Officer. Currently, the petitioner is working as Senior Manager, at SAM Branch, Regional Office Koti and the petitioner is also the General Secretary of Union Bank Officers Congress - A.P. & Telangana States, which is affiliated to AIUBOC/INBOC/INTUC. The petitioner has an impeccable service record and have been working diligently towards the Bank and have been fulfilling his duties with utmost respect towards his service.
b) As General Secretary of Officers Union, in the petitioner’s representative capacity, the petitioner used to represent the problems / concerns of Officers and violations in implementing the laid down guidelines and policies framed by Bank and Government and the same were taken to the notice of the management. During this, the petitioner has raised a lot of concerns and the same were dealt by the management of the Bank.
c) The Union Bank Officers Congress, A.P & Telangana States issued a circular No.2/2022, dated 11-03-2022 with subject matter sudden demise of Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, CM because of vindictive and inhuman behaviour of Mr.Kabir Bhattacharya-FGM, Hyderabad and Mr.C.V.N.Bhaskara Rao, RH, Panjagutta and the same was circulated to all members and to the concerned Bank Officials.
d) The Union Bank Officers Congress, A.P. & Telangana States wrote a letter No. UBOC:98:2022, dated 12-03-2022 to the 1st Respondent with the same subject matter in circular 2/2022 dated 11-03-2022 issued by the Union and hoped that they value human life and deliver justice. That the union issued letter No.99/2022 dated 19-03-2022 to the General Manager, FGM Office, Secunderabad, Union Bank of India condemning his actions.
e) The 4th Respondent issued Memo HR:SEC:21:2022 dt. 2.05.2022 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why appropriate disciplinary action should not be initiated against the petitioner for acts/omissions on his part. But the entire allegations levelled against the petitioner were baseless and vindictive. Further on 04.05.2022, the petitioner has given a detailed reply to the memo HR:SEC:21:2022, dt. 2.05.2022, explaining his stand point as to how the complete allegations levelled against the petitioner were baseless.
f) The 3rd Respondent issued articles of charge in Ref.No.CO:ERD: OS:MISC:341:2022, dated 01-08-2022 calling upon the petitioner to submit his written statement of defence within 7 days of receipt thereof as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him. Aggrieved by the articles of charge inRef.No.CO:ERD:OS:MISC:341:2022, dated 01.08.2022 issued by the 3rd Respondent, this present writ petition is filed before this Court.
4. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, is as follows:
a) The petitioner mentions about the death of Mr. T. Ravi Kumar, CM of the Bank, and refers to the names of Mr. Kabir Bhattacharya-FGM, Hyderabad and Mr. CVN Bhaskara Rao, RH, Panjagutta, as though these persons were responsible for the sad demise of Mr. T. Ravi Kumar. The petitioner also, with utmost certainty and non-chalance, mentions that the same was circulated to all members and to the concerned bank officials
b) In the petitioner’s Defence Statement, under point No.1, the petitioner claims that he has fo
Charges in disciplinary proceedings must be specific and fair, adhering to natural justice principles.
Disciplinary actions in banking must adhere to principles of natural justice and ensure parity in punishment among co-delinquents, as disparities can indicate bias and unjust treatment.
The court can interfere with the decision of the disciplinary authority when findings are unsupported by evidence or suffer from perversity. The court also considered the similarity of charges in the....
The importance of following prescribed procedures and principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was not disproportionate to the charges proved, and the disciplinary proceedings were valid.
Distinct allegations against employee charged in the same transaction would be justified being based on a valid classification and no perversity or arbitrariness can be alleged in the process.
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
