The Supreme Court recently set aside the disciplinary proceedings initiated by Union Bank of India against a retired officer, holding that the Bank bypassed its own rules and failed to wait for necessary advice from the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).
A Bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and A.G. Masih heard the matter involving the former bank employee who faced suspension and a charge sheet a few days before his retirement. The issue revolved around the Bank’s own Regulation 19 and CVC circulars, which clearly required the Bank to seek first-stage advice from the CVC before initiating any disciplinary action in vigilance-related matters.
Read also: Rahul Gandhi Alleges Savarkar’s Family Link with Godse in Pune Defamation Case
The Union Bank of India acknowledged this requirement and requested the CVC’s advice. However, it proceeded to issue the charge sheet against the officer before receiving the CVC's input, violating its own procedural obligations. The retired officer challenged this before the Allahabad High Court, but his plea was dismissed.
Dissatisfied, the appellant moved to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Bank’s actions were procedurally unfair and arbitrary since it had already admitted the need to obtain CVC advice but chose to issue the charge sheet prematurely.
Read also: Supreme Court Questions Haryana Govt On NHRC's Concerns Over FIR Against Ali Khan Mahmudabad
The Supreme Court agreed with the appellant and set aside the disciplinary action. In the judgment authored by Justice Oka, the Court stated:
“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.”
Read also: Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Transfer of Four High Court Chief Justices
The Court emphasized that the Bank’s failure to await the CVC’s advice amounted to a violation of procedural fairness, especially when it had assured the High Court (through affidavits) that no charge sheet would be issued before receiving such advice.
Case Title: A.M. Kulshrestha v. Union Bank of India and Ors.
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR Mr. Akshat Kulshrestha, Adv. Mr. Tushar Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Shrya Nair, Adv. Mr. Ravi Chandra Prakash, Adv. Mr. Prakhar Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. O. P. Gaggar, AOR Mr. Sachindra Karn, Adv.
