In a case where an order of suspension was served upon a Bank employee only ten months before the date of his superannuation, the Supreme Court has quashed the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him after noting that he was sought to be victimized at the fag end of his unblemished career of 34 years.

The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court affirming the order of the Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition preferred by the appellant seeking quashing of the charge sheet served on him pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings.

The Division Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih held, “Now, at this stage, it will be unjust to allow the respondent-Bank to resume disciplinary proceedings. Almost six years have passed since the superannuation of the Appellant.”

AOR Purushottam Sharma Tripathi represented the Appellant while AOR O. P. Gaggar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellant was an employee of the Union Bank of India (Respondent Bank), where he served for approximately 34 years from 1984 to 2018. He was promoted to the post of Deputy General Manager in 2016 and was due to retire on June 30, 2019. The Respondent Bank suspended the appellant pending further disciplinary action, alleging that the appellant, in his prior role as the Regional Head had adopted a very casual approach while sanctioning credit proposals in 16 accounts submitted by the Mid-corporate Ghaziabad Branch. It was alleged that he sanctioned huge limits to newly incorporated firms without ensuring proper due diligence by the branch or processing officers.

The appellant made multiple representations to the Respondent Bank, requesting it to revoke his suspension. However, the same was of no avail. The appellant preferred a Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition before the Allahabad High Court. The General Manager submitted a personal affidavit justifying the delay in issuing the charge sheet as attributable to the matter being referred to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) in terms of Regulation 19 of the Union of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976. The High Court quashed the suspension order.

Another petition was filed by the appellant seeking quashing of the charge sheet, but the same was dismissed and the appellant was directed to cooperate in the enquiry. The appellant challenged the said Order by filing a Special Appeal but the Division Bench dismissed the same, holding that it was not necessary to seek the CVC’s advice before issuing the charge sheet. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench was of the view that it was not open for the Bank to serve the charge sheet without receiving and considering the first stage advice by the CVC as the Respondent Bank itself accepted the necessity of seeking first-stage advice from the CVC.

The Bench took note of the fact that only ten months before the date of superannuation, an order of suspension was served upon the appellant. This was done after 34 years of unblemished service. Although it was necessary to take the first stage advice of the CVC, the advice was sought very late and twelve days before reaching the age of superannuation, a charge sheet was served upon the appellant, without receiving and considering the CVC’s advice. This was despite the specific statement made by the Executive Director in the earlier petition on oath, which stated that the charge sheet would only be served upon receipt of advice from the CVC.

“Once, the first stage advice of the CVC was called, it was the duty of the respondent-Bank to consider the advice and then take a decision to serve the chargesheet. Thus, the actions of the respondent-Bank are mala fide and arbitrary. The appellant was sought to be victimised at the fag end of his unblemished career of 34 years”, it said.

As per the Bench, the High Court committed a gross error by holding that Regulation 19 of the 1976 Regulations was not mandatory. This issue was irrelevant, as the Bank had itself acknowledged that in the facts of the case, it was necessary to seek first-stage advice from the CVC. Moreover, no record was placed in the High Court to indicate that the CVC report had been received.

Thus, quashing the disciplinary proceedings, including the charge sheet and allowing the Appeal, the Bench held, “Although the appellant shall not be entitled to back wages and allowances, the Respondent Bank shall release all retirement benefits admissible on the basis that the appellant as superannuated as of 30th June 2019. The amount of retirement benefits due to the appellant in accordance with the law, shall be paid to the appellant within three months from today.”

Cause Title: A.M. Kulshrestha V. Union Bank of India and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 744)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Advocates Akshat Kulshrestha, Rajiv Kumar, Vani Vyas, Prakhar Singh, Tushar Srivasatav, Shreya Nair

Respondent: AOR O. P. Gaggar, Advocate Sachindra Karn

Click here to read/download Judgment




Justice Abhay S OkaJustice Augustine George Masih

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.