Summary
A charge sheet served on a bank officer twelve days before his superannuation, without receiving the Central Vigilance Commission's first-stage advice that the Bank had itself sought under Regulation 19 of the 1976 Regulations and had sworn it would await, was held mala fide and arbitrary. The disciplinary proceedings were quashed and the Bank was directed to release all retiral benefits, without back wages.
Issues
- Whether the Bank could serve a charge sheet on the appellant before receiving and considering the CVC's first-stage advice, when it had itself sought that advice under Regulation 19 and stated on affidavit before the High Court that the charge sheet would issue only after the advice was received.
- Whether it was necessary to decide if consultation with the CVC under Regulation 19 of the 1976 Regulations is mandatory or directory.
- Whether, almost six years after the appellant's superannuation, the Bank should be permitted to resume the disciplinary proceedings, and what relief the appellant is entitled to.
Provisions considered
- Regulation 19, Union Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976Regulation 19 requires the Bank to consult the CVC 'wherever necessary' in all disciplinary cases having a vigilance angle. The Court read it as obliging the Bank to seek the CVC's advice once the Bank deems consultation necessary, and declined to decide whether the provision is mandatory or directory because the Bank had itself acknowledged the vigilance angle and sought first-stage advice; having done so, it could not serve the charge sheet without receiving and considering that advice. (¶¶ 8, 16, 19, 21, 22)
Held
- The Bank, having accepted that Regulation 19 applied and having sought the CVC's first-stage advice, was bound to receive and consider that advice before taking a decision to serve the charge sheet; keeping a charge sheet dated 10 June 2019 ready and serving it on 18 June 2019 without the advice was not open to it. (¶¶ 16, 17, 19, 21)
- The question whether consultation under Regulation 19 is mandatory or directory did not arise, because the Bank itself acknowledged that the case had a vigilance angle and that consultation was necessary; the High Court committed a gross error in deciding the matter on the footing that Regulation 19 was not mandatory, an issue that was irrelevant on the facts. (¶¶ 16, 22)
- Under the CVC circulars of 2000, 2004 and 2015, the Commission is consulted at two stages: first-stage advice on the investigation report before the charge sheet is issued, and second-stage advice on the reply to the charge sheet or on the enquiry report. (¶¶ 9, 17)
- Suspending an officer with 34 years of unblemished service ten months before superannuation, seeking the CVC's advice only nine months after the suspension, and then serving the charge sheet twelve days before superannuation despite the Executive Director's statement on oath that it would issue only after the advice, was mala fide and arbitrary and sought to victimise the appellant at the end of his career. (¶¶ 18, 20, 21)
- Almost six years having passed since superannuation, it would be unjust to allow the Bank to resume the disciplinary proceedings; the appellant is entitled to all retiral benefits but not to back wages or allowances. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25)
Result
Appeal allowed; disciplinary proceedings, including the charge sheet dated 10 June 2019, quashed and set aside; the Bank to release all retirement benefits admissible on the basis that the appellant superannuated on 30 June 2019, within three months; no back wages or allowances.