A.M. KULSHRESTHA v. UNION BANK OF INDIA
Discusses interpretation of regulations, mandatory vs. discretionary powers, and procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 744
Decision Date: 20-05-2025
List of Laws
Union Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976; Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003; General Principles of Law
- Union Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976: The judgment extensively discusses Regulation 19 of the 1976 Regulations, which pertains to consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). The core issue is whether seeking the CVC's advice is mandatory before issuing a charge sheet in disciplinary cases with a vigilance angle. The appellant argued that the phrase "shall consult" makes it mandatory, citing CVC circulars. The respondent argued that "wherever necessary" provides discretion. The court notes the bank itself acknowledged the case had a vigilance angle and sought CVC opinion, thus making the issue of mandatory consultation irrelevant in this specific context. The court found that the charge sheet was served before receiving the CVC's advice, despite the Executive Director's statement that it would only be served after receiving the advice. The court ultimately held that the High Court erred in deeming Regulation 19 as non-mandatory, and quashed the disciplinary proceedings.
- Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003: The judgment refers to Section 8(1)(h) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, which outlines the CVC's function and power to exercise superintendence over the vigilance administration of various Ministries/Corporations of the Central Government. The appellant's counsel drew attention to this section to support the argument that consultation with the CVC is a necessary pre-requisite for initiating disciplinary proceedings.
- General Principles of Law: The judgment implicitly touches upon principles of fairness and natural justice. The court's emphasis on the Respondent Bank's own acknowledgement of the need for CVC advice, and their subsequent failure to await that advice before issuing the charge sheet, suggests a concern with procedural fairness and the principle of estoppel. The court's finding of "mala fide and arbitrary" actions by the bank also indicates a consideration of whether the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in a fair and unbiased manner.
🔒 For Members Only