In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has quashed the disciplinary proceedings initiated against a retired Union Bank of India officer, highlighting the importance of adhering to procedural fairness and institutional regulations. The Court emphasized that once the bank acknowledged the necessity of consulting the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) before taking disciplinary action, it was bound to consider the CVC's advice before proceeding with the charge sheet.
The case revolved around A.M. Kulshrestha, a senior officer who was suspended just days before his retirement. The Union Bank of India had recognized that the matter involved a vigilance angle and, as per its Regulation 19 and CVC guidelines, was required to seek the CVC's first-stage advice before initiating disciplinary proceedings. However, the bank proceeded to issue the charge sheet without awaiting the CVC's input, prompting Kulshrestha to challenge the decision.
The Allahabad High Court had earlier dismissed Kulshrestha's writ petition, upholding the bank's actions. However, the Supreme Court found this decision flawed, stating that the bank's failure to obtain and consider the CVC's advice before issuing the charge sheet was arbitrary and violated its own procedural obligations. The Court noted that the bank had assured the High Court that the charge sheet would be issued only after receiving the CVC's advice, making their subsequent actions in bad faith.
Justice Abhay S. Oka, delivering the judgment, remarked that the bank's actions were "mala fide and arbitrary," and that Kulshrestha was being unfairly targeted at the end of his 34-year unblemished career. The Court emphasized that adherence to procedural fairness is paramount, especially when institutional regulations and guidelines are in place to ensure transparency and accountability.
Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the charge sheet and all related disciplinary proceedings against Kulshrestha. The Court also directed the Union Bank of India to release his full retirement benefits, excluding back wages, acknowledging the procedural unfairness that had marred the disciplinary process.
This judgment underscores the critical importance of following established procedures in disciplinary matters, particularly in public sector institutions. It serves as a reminder that even in cases involving vigilance concerns, the rights of employees must be protected through fair and transparent processes. The ruling also reinforces the binding nature of institutional regulations and the necessity for authorities to act in good faith and in accordance with the law.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's intervention in this case reaffirms the principle that procedural fairness is integral to the administration of justice. By holding the Union Bank of India accountable for its failure to adhere to its own regulations and the CVC's guidelines, the Court has set a precedent that emphasizes the need for transparency, accountability, and fairness in disciplinary proceedings within public sector institutions.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.