Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 649
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.M. MANOJ, J
V.K.SEBASTIAN – Appellant
Versus
THE CHAIRMAN (DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY) – Respondent
WP(C) 1927/2012
The absence of specific regulations prohibiting audio recording during interviews negates misconduct claims, and applying amended regulations for punishment violates natural justice.
Headnote:(A) South Malabar Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2001 - Regulation 18 - Disciplinary proceedings - Misconduct for recording interview proceedings - Petitioner recorded interview for Scale III promotion and published transcript, claiming no misconduct. The court found no specific provision barring such recording at the time, thus misconduct not established. (Paras 31, 37)
(B) Regulation 39(1)(b)(i) of the Regulations, 2010 - Imposition of punishment under amended regulations - Punishment imposed was not available at the time of initiation of proceedings, violating principles of natural justice. (Paras 37, 38)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner, an Officer Scale II, recorded audio of an interview for promotion and was charged with misconduct for unauthorized recording and publication, leading to disciplinary action. The petitioner argued there was no specific prohibition against such actions in the regulations at the time.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the petitioner did not commit misconduct as defined by existing regulations at the time of the alleged actions, and the punishment imposed under new regulations was not sustainable.
Issues: Whether the recording constituted misconduct and whether the punishment was legally imposed under the amended regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that without explicit provisions in the regulations at the time of the alleged misconduct, the petitioner could not be penalized, and the application of amended regulations violated due process.
Result: The disciplinary action was set aside, and the petitioner was entitled to consequential benefits.
Dated this the 17 th day of January, 2025
The questions to be decided in this writ petition are whether the finding of misconduct or the delinquency in the absence of specific provision in the Service Regulation of the respondent bank is correct ? and the imposition of punishment on the basis of the provisions of the revised regulations which was not existing at the time of initiation is sustainable ?
2. While the petitioner was working as Officer Scale II in the South Malabar Gramin Bank, he had participated in the selection process of Scale III Officer’s post on 19.05.2008. Thereafter he preferred WP(C) No.20987 of 2008 before this Court challenging 2008 Selection Process. In that writ petition he had produced the transcription of the audio recording of the interview as an evidence to show that the interview conducted was prejudicial to his interest. The said act was done on the reason that he was unofficially informed prior to the time of interview that he would not be given promotion in 2008, unless he withdrew WP(C)No.34293 of 2006, a writ petition filed against the selection process of 2006, petitioner herein was one among the petitioners.
3. The petitioner was suspended by the Bank as per Ext.P4 on 25.07.2008 on the ground that he acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the bank which prima facie amounts to gross misconduct warranting disciplinary action against him until further orders, pending enquiry. Thereafter he was issued with a show cause notice on 12.08.2008 to assign reasons why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for the misconduct alleged therein. The misconduct alleged therein was that during the selection proceedings of Scale III Officers held on 19.05.2008 he had recorded the audio of the said proceedings using his mobile phone and published the transcription of the audio recorded item on 09.07.2008. That act amounts to grave misconduct coming under Clauses 17 to 20 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules of South Malabar Gramin Bank (Officers and employees) Service Regulations, 2001 (For short “Service Regulations, 2001”). The petitioner had preferred his reply by Ext.P6 dated 18.08.2008, whereby he explained that he recorded the interview to expose potential unfair practice and submitted it as an evidence before the High Court. That will not attract the provisions of Clauses 17 to 20 of the Service Regulations 2001. Thereby he has not committed any misconduct.
4. Thereafter the petitioner was served with chargesheet for the alleged misconduct as per chargesheet dated 13.10.2008. The charges levelled against the petitioner are as follows :
“1. You have unauthorisedly audio recorded portion of the selection proceedings for promotion to Scale III officers held on 19.05.2008 in your mobile phone.
2. You have made a transcript of the unauthorisedly audio recorded portion of the selection proceedings and made an unauthorised publication of the same on 09.07.2008.”
5. It is stated in the chargesheet that the reply to the show cause notice as aforementioned is not convincing and satisfactory. That is the reason for issuing chargesheet.
6. In response, the petitioner has preferred his reply on 25.10.2008 as per Ext.P10 wherein he tried to justify his stand stating that he had not received any directions barring audio recording of official process from any Superiors. The service regulations also do not prohibit audio recording of promotion interviews. The act of audio/video recording of the interview either by the interview board or by the candidate itself is not patently illegal as such an act facilitates maintenance of a true record of the official process involved. Making a true record of an official process cannot be treated as an illegal act. For every communication/transaction like appointment, transfer, promotion, leave, salary etc between the employer and employee in any organisation, a proper record is always maintained. Copies of such records are usually made available by t
