Case Note & Summary
The appellant, A.M. Kulshrestha, was an employee of Union Bank of India for approximately 34 years, retiring as Deputy General Manager in 2019. In August 2018, he was suspended pending disciplinary action for alleged casual approach in sanctioning credit proposals. After suspension, show cause notices were issued in January and March 2019. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the suspension, during which the bank's General Manager and Executive Director filed affidavits stating that the matter had been referred to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) for first stage advice under Regulation 19 of the Union Bank of India Officers Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976, and that a charge sheet would be issued only after receiving CVC advice. However, on 18 June 2019, the bank served an ante-dated charge sheet of 10 June 2019 without having received the CVC's advice. The High Court quashed the suspension order but allowed disciplinary proceedings to continue. The appellant then filed a writ petition to quash the charge sheet, which was dismissed by the Single Judge and affirmed by the Division Bench. The Supreme Court considered whether consultation with the CVC under Regulation 19 is mandatory before issuing a charge sheet in vigilance cases. The court analyzed the language of Regulation 19, which uses 'shall consult' but also 'wherever necessary', and examined CVC circulars requiring first stage advice before charge sheet issuance. The court held that Regulation 19 imposes a mandatory obligation to consult the CVC in cases with a vigilance angle, and the bank's failure to do so before issuing the charge sheet rendered the charge sheet invalid. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the charge sheet, and directed the bank to consider the appellant's pension and retiral benefits in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Consultation with CVC - Regulation 19 of Union Bank of India Officers Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 - Mandatory Requirement - The court considered whether prior consultation with the CVC is mandatory before issuing a charge sheet in vigilance cases. Held that Regulation 19 imposes a mandatory obligation to consult the CVC wherever necessary, and the charge sheet issued without such consultation is invalid. (Paras 8-15) B) Service Law - CVC Circulars - First Stage Advice - CVC Circular No. 99/VGL/66 dated 28.09.2000, Circular No. 24/4/04 dated 15.04.2004, Circular No. 07/04/15 dated 27.04.2015 - The court examined CVC circulars requiring first stage advice before issuance of charge sheet. Held that these circulars reinforce the mandatory nature of consultation, and the bank's failure to seek advice before issuing charge sheet vitiates the proceedings. (Paras 9-10) C) Service Law - Suspension - Validity - The court noted that the appellant's suspension was quashed by the High Court due to delay in issuing charge sheet. However, the disciplinary proceedings continued. The court did not address the suspension issue in detail but focused on the charge sheet. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) under Regulation 19 of the Union Bank of India Officers Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 is mandatory before issuing a charge sheet to an employee in disciplinary cases involving a vigilance angle.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the charge sheet dated 10 June 2019, and directed the bank to consider the appellant's pension and retiral benefits in accordance with law. The court held that consultation with CVC under Regulation 19 is mandatory before issuing a charge sheet in disciplinary cases with a vigilance angle.
Law Points
- Mandatory consultation with CVC before issuing charge sheet in vigilance cases
- Regulation 19 of Union Bank of India Officers Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations
- 1976
- Interpretation of 'shall consult' and 'wherever necessary'
- CVC Circulars on first stage advice
