A.M. Kulshrestha vs Union Bank of India and Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

20 May 2025

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 7039 of 2025

Bench

Abhay S. Oka, Augustine George Masih

Citation

[2025] 7 S.C.R. 42 : 2025 INSC 744

Acts & Sections

Union of India Officer Employees’… Union Bank of India Employees’ Pension… Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 CVC’s Vigilance Manual, 2017

Issue for consideration

Whether the disciplinary proceedings including the charge sheet against the appellant ought to be quashed and set aside; whether the action of the respondent-Bank was mala fide and arbitrary in serving the charge sheet without receiving the first stage advice by the Central Vigilance Commission.

Headnote

Union of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 – Regulation 19 – Consultation with Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) – Respondent-Bank served charge sheet upon the appellant without waiting for the CVC’s advice – Appellant sought quashing of charge-sheet, writ petition dismissed by High Court – Interference with: Held: Regulation 19 stipulates that the Bank shall consult the CVC, wherever necessary, in respect of disciplinary cases having a vigilance angle – The CVC is consulted at two stages for its advice – The first stage advice is sought before the issuance of the charge sheet, and the second stage advice is either on receipt of the reply to the charge sheet or on receipt of the enquiry report – Respondent itself acknowledged that the case had a vigilance angle and consultation with the CVC was necessary, and therefore, it sought the opinion of the CVC – Therefore, it was not open for the Bank to serve the charge sheet without receiving and considering the first stage advice by the CVC – This was despite the statement made by the Executive Director in the earlier petition, filed by the appellant challenging the suspension order, stating that the charge sheet would only be served upon receipt of advice from the CVC – Actions of the respondent are mala fide and arbitrary – High Court erred in holding that Regulation 19 was not mandatory – This issue was irrelevant as the Bank itself acknowledged that in the facts of the case, it was necessary to seek first-stage advice from the CVC – Disciplinary proceedings including the charge sheet are quashed and set aside – Union Bank of India Employees’ Pension Regulation, 1995. [Paras 16, 17, 19-21, 22, 25]

Judgment Abhay S. Oka, J. Leave granted. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th September, 2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad affirming the order of the Learned Single Judge dated 26th July, 2019, whereby the Writ Petition preferred by the appellant seeking quashing of the charge sheet served on him pursuant to disciplinary proceedings was dismissed. FACTUAL ASPECTS 2. The appellant was an employee of the Union Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as “The Respondent Bank”), where he served for approximately 34 years from 1984 t

View Subscription Plans →