LexA.M. KULSHRESTHA versus UNION BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 42 : 2025 INSC 744 A.M. Kulshrestha v. Union Bank of India and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7039 of 2025) 20 May 2025 [Abhay S. Oka* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the disciplinary proceedings including the charge sheet against the appellant ought to be quashed and set aside; whether the action of the respondent-Bank was mala fide and arbitrary in serving the charge sheet without receiving the first stage advice by the Central Vigilance Commission. Headnotes† Union of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 – Regulation 19 – Consultation with Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) – Respondent-Bank served charge sheet upon the appellant without waiting for the CVC’s advice – Appellant sought quashing of charge-sheet, writ petition dismissed by High Court – Interference with: Held: Regulation 19 stipulates that the Bank shall consult the CVC, wherever necessary, in respect of disciplinary cases having a vigilance angle – The CVC is consulted at two stages for its advice – The first stage advice is sought before the issuance of the charge sheet, and the second stage advice is either on receipt of the reply to the charge sheet or on receipt of the enquiry report – Respondent itself acknowledged that the case had a vigilance angle and consultation with the CVC was necessary, and therefore, it sought the opinion of the CVC – Therefore, it was not open for the Bank to serve the charge sheet without receiving and considering the first stage advice by the CVC – This was despite the statement made by the Executive Director in the earlier petition, filed by the appellant challenging the suspension order, stating that the charge sheet would only be served upon receipt of advice from the CVC – Actions of the respondent are mala fide and arbitrary – High Court * Author [2025] 7 S.C.R. 43 A.M. Kulshrestha v. Union Bank of India and Ors. erred in holding that Regulation 19 was not mandatory – This issue was irrelevant as the Bank itself acknowledged that in the facts of the case, it was necessary to seek first-stage advice from the CVC – Disciplinary proceedings including the charge sheet are quashed and set aside – Union Bank of India Employees’ Pension Regulation, 1995. [Paras 16, 17, 19-21, 22, 25] List of Acts Union of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976; Union Bank of India Employees’ Pension Regulation, 1995; Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003; CVC’s Vigilance Manual, 2017. List of Keywords Regulation 19 of Union of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976; Central Vigilance Commission (CVC); Consultation with Central Vigilance Commission; Disciplinary proceedings; Charge-sheet served without receiving the first stage advice by the Central Vigilance Commission; Suspension order; Disciplinary cases having a vigilance angle; CVC’s advice; CVC’s first-stage advice; Delay in issuing the charge sheet; Superannuation; Disciplinary action; Sanctioning credit proposals; Vigilance proceedings; Consultation with the CVC mandatory or discretionary; Disciplinary proceedings and charge sheet quashed; Retiral benefits. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7039 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2019 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in SPLA No. 963 of 2019 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv., Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Akshat Kulshrestha, Tushar Srivastava, Ms. Shrya Nair, Ravi Chandra Prakash, Prakhar Singh. Advs. for the Respondents: O.P. Gaggar, Sachindra Karn. 44 [2025] 7 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Abhay S. Oka, J. Leave granted. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th September, 2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad affirming the order of the Learned Single Judge dated 26th July, 2019, whereby the Writ Petition preferred by the appellant seeking quashing of the charge sheet served on him pursuant to disciplinary proceedings was dismissed. FACTUAL ASPECTS 2. The appellant was an employee of the Union Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as “The Respondent Bank”), where he served for approximately 34 years from 1984 to 2018. He was promoted to the post of Deputy General Manager in 2016 and was due to retire on 30th June, 2019. 3. The Respondent Bank
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.