Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 35665
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J
S.Gunasekar – Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India – Respondent
Writ Petition
For Petitioner: Mr.R.Kamatchi Sundaresan
For Respondent: Mr. Chevanan Mohan, assisted by Ms.A.Rexy Josephine Mary for M/S King & Partridge
Employees entitled to notional promotion post-reinstatement if bank deviates from appellate court directions on disciplinary penalties.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged orders denying promotion to Junior Management Grade Scale-I from 2006, citing Article 226 of the Constitution. Essential facts involved disciplinary charges for issuing defamatory pamphlets as a trade union office bearer, prior dismissal set aside by Division Bench directing reinstatement with liberty to impose minor penalties under Clause 8 of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002. The court found the bank's reliance on a 2008 debarment policy for pending proceedings violated the Division Bench's directions, entitling the petitioner to notional promotion. Key issues framed as whether the petitioner was entitled to promotion despite surviving charges under Clauses 7(b), 7(c), and 7(e). Ratio decidendi emphasized strict compliance with Division Bench orders permitting only penalties under the 2002 Settlement, not later policies; pending charges from 2014 and 2016 unresolved, one settled via apology and payment per court order in W.P. No. 26780 of 2016. Writ petition allowed; notional promotion from 2007 with consequential benefits ordered, terminal benefits to be recalculated within two months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of charges and prior litigation. (Para 4) |
| 2. division bench directions on reinstatement. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. bank's debarment policy arguments. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 4. non-compliance with appellate orders. (Para 10 , 11) |
Order
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the respondent dated 20.11.2015 bearing No. AGM/1232 and the consequential order dated 08.01.2016 bearing No. AGM/1/1437, whereby the writ petitioner was denied promotion to Junior Management Grade Scale–I from the year 2006, which is alleged to be illegal and arbitrary.
2. The writ petitioner joined the respondent Bank as a Cashier on
30.11.1978 and was working as a Special Assistant from 01.08.2003. Four charges were framed against the writ petitioner. When the charge sheet was challenged on 10.03.2007, the Bank had also filed a suit in C.S. No. 132 of 2007, which was subsequently transferred and renumbered as O.S. No. 6872 of 2015 on the file of the VI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai and the same was decreed in favour of the Bank.
3. The writ petitioner had also challenged the charge sheet by filing W.P.
No. 10925 of 2007, which came to be dismissed on 27.09.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner preferred a writ appeal in W.A. No. 356 of 2008, which was allowed and consequently the charge sheet dated 10.03.2007 was quashed.
4. The charge against the writ petitioner is that, being an office bearer of the State Bank of India Ambedkar Trade Union, he had issued pamphlets which were detrimental to the interests of the Bank, with an intention to defame the Bank and cause damage to its business and reputation. The contents of the pamphlet are extracted below:
“
!;nll; gh'.fpy; ntypna gapiu nka;fpwJ !
Mjpfhhpfns bghJkf;fs; gzj;ij mng!; bra;ayhkh>
Ugha; 5 ,yl;rk;- nryk; fpisapy; nkhro Ugha; 6 ,yl;rk;- ,uhrpgu[ k; fpisapy; nkhro Ugha; 5.5 ,yl;rk;- mike;jfiu fpisapy; nkhro Ugha; 5 ,yl;rk;- Fspj;jiy fpisapy; nkhro ,d;W Kjypy; U.6 ,yl;rk;- mtpdhrp fpis gpd; U.1 ,yl;rk; - mtpdhrp fpis ,g;nghJ U.30 ,yl;rk; mtpdhrp fpis jiyik bghJ nkyhsh; gpujpg; brsj;hpna jhh;kPf bghWg;ngw;W cldoahf ,uh$pdhkh bra;!
!;nll; gh';f; Mg; ,e;jpah mk;ngj;fhh; bjhHpw;r';fk;-
”
brd;id tl;lhuk;
5. After dismissal of the writ petition, the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court, by an order dated 01.07.2015 in W.A. Nos. 336, 356 and 357 of 2008 (batch), passed the following order:
“86. We are 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). Alternatively, we could ourselves impose a minor penalty taking into consideration the bad blood that has run between this trade union and the management.
87. We 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 [2014 (9) SCC 315].
88. Therefore, in the result, W.P.No.3267 of 2015 is allowed setting aside the order of penalty of dismissal from service and directing the bank to reinstate the writ petitioner with all consequential benefits including backwages. However, it will be open to the disciplinary authority to impose a suitable penalty in terms of clause 8 of the Memorandum of Settlement, for the acts of misconduct that now survive in relation to clauses 7(b), 7(c) and 7 (e) of the Memorandum of Settlement.
89. In the result, (i) Writ Appeal Nos.336, 356 & 357 of 2008 will stand allowed (ii) W
