ORDER A.H. Saikia 1. Heard Mr. K.H. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Sheikh Muktar, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. A.C. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the Bank Respondents. 2. In order to appreciate and determine the issue involved in this case, it would be apt and necessary to narrate the factual matrix of the case in a short compass. The Bank-Respondents by Memorandum dated March 23, 1999 issued a show cause to the petitioner who is an employee of the Bank-Respondents working in the capacity of a Branch Manager at the relevant time, asking him to explain as to why a Disciplinary proceeding shall not be initiated against him for the allegations stated therein. The said Memorandum is extracted as under: "Ref. No. R.O/UPAS : PRS:DAD: 98-99: 415 March 23, 1999 Memorandum While posted to work as Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Thanachariali Branch, Sri Nabiruddin Ahmed gave a false introduction of some persons to open their new HSS accounts with the Branch. As a result of this, the culprits succeeded to open their fake accounts and later on they could encash stolen Refund orders of ITC Classic Finance Ltd. through these accounts impersonating the actual beneficiary. Details of those fake HSS accounts and fraudulent encashment of Refund orders are given here-in-below: Sr. No. HSS a/c & name Stolen Refund Order collected Rs. Amount vithdrawn Remarks 1. a/c No. 5292 Gita Kundu 93,157.00 93.000.00 No photograph is available in record 2. a/c No. 5313 Shefali Saha 68,956.00 68,000.00 Photograph specimen signature card is not on record Besides above, the following fake HSS accounts were also opened in the Branch without observing Central Office's guideline laid down therefor. Subsequently the culprits could get encashment of several Refund Orders (Stolen) of ITC Classic Finance Ltd./UTI through these fake accounts. Obviously, Sri Ahmed, being a Branch Manager had no control over the affairs of HSS deptt. and its incharge which in turn led the above incidents. Sr. No. HSS a/c & name Stolen Refund Order collected Rs. Amount vithdrawn by the culprits 1. 5269 Sudarshan Singh 163754.33 163000.00 2. 5274 Nil Rattan Chakravorty 100000.00 100000.00 3. 5257 Anjan Mallik 68525.78 68000.00 4. 5304 Nihir Kana Saha 63737.48 63750.00 5. 5321 Shefali Chakravorty 100006.21(sic) 100000.00 6. 5324 Narashinga Mohan Kar 49063.00 49000.00 7. 5328 Dr. Sr. No. HSS a/c & name Stolen Refund Order collected Rs. Amount vithdrawn by the culprits 1. 5269 Sudarshan Singh 163754.33 163000.00 2. 5274 Nil Rattan Chakravorty 100000.00 100000.00 3. 5257 Anjan Mallik 68525.78 68000.00 4. 5304 Nihir Kana Saha 63737.48 63750.00 5. 5321 Shefali Chakravorty 100006.21(sic) 100000.00 6. 5324 Narashinga Mohan Kar 49063.00 49000.00 7. 5328 Dr. Saibal Banerjee 49049.07 49000.00 Later on, the photographs given in the account opening forms were tampered with some chemicals so that they were defaced beyond recognition. Once the stolen instruments were given instant credit money was withdrawn in lump sum in one or two installments. Shri Ahmed is therefore called upon to explain as to why necessary action should not be initiated against him departmentally for his abovesaid lapses, within 7 days failing which, it will be construed that he has nothing to offer as explanation and the Bank shall take such steps as may deem fit and proper. Sd/- illegible To Shri Nabiruddin Ahmed, Regional Manager. B.M., Dimapur". 3. The said show cause was replied by the petitioner on May 26, 1999 but the Bank-Respondents did not communicate as regards the appreciation or acceptance of the said reply. On the other hand, on April 21, 1999 another show cause was issued to the petitioner with the following allegations which is quoted herein under: "Ref. No. RO/UPAS/PRS/DAD/1999-2000/10 April 21, 1999. Memorandum "While working as Branch Manager, Dimapur Branch, Shri Nabiruddin Ahmed has committed the following acts of omission and commission" 1) He abused his official by sanctioning a DOD limit of Rs. 15.00 Lakhs to a party Imsong Supplier on November 19, 1998 without observing the lending norms set by the Bank in this regard. As per the papers submitted by the party himself, it reveals that the party had never required for any Bank's finance rather his own funds/capital were quite sufficient to meet his own projected turnover/financial requirements and achieved the projected profit. But Shri Ahmed allowed the above said limit to the party without processing the proposal adequately and assessing the actual working account. As a result of this, his higher authorities did not approve his above actions and advised him to make sure that entire amount of outstanding balance in the account has been adjusted. But Shri Ahmed allowed the above said limit to the party without processing the proposal adequately and assessing the actual working account. As a result of this, his higher authorities did not approve his above actions and advised him to make sure that entire amount of outstanding balance in the account has been adjusted. But instead of complying with the instructions of his higher authorities, he preferred to continue in extending above said credit facility to the party. Curiously enough, the party is also enjoying a B.P. facility from time to time apart from a regular Cash Credit limit of Rs. 10.50 Lakhs under the another flags of Frontier Trade Agency from the State Bank of India, Dimapur whereas the matter was informed to the Branch. 2) Shri Ahmed enhanced the Cash Credit Limit of Hill Timber Mart from Rs. 4 Lakhs to Rs. 6. 20 Lakhs on November 3, 1998 to merely cover up the overdue position of the a/c since there was an outstanding balance of Rs. 5,56,863. 00 in the account as on October 31, 1998. On the other hand, looking to the operations in the a/c, party's previous record, and the fact that the Govt. has banned timber cutting in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment, the party was not entitled to be extended with the enhanced facility The outstanding balance as on March 4, 1999 in the a/c was Rs. 7,41,839.00. 3) Similarly in the case of 'Neetee Computer' he allowed excess/ ad hoc drawings beyond his delegated lending powers. In the party's case Cash Credit account o/s balance as on March 4, 1999 was Rs. 9,23,330.00 against a sanctioned limit of Rs. 6 Lakhs. 4) It has also been reported that while functioning as Branch Manager, Thanachariali Branch, he had allowed excess drawings on several occasions to a party Flavour & Liquor without having any lending power to do so and did not keep posted his higher authorities deliberately. The maximum debit balance in the account had been reached upto Rs. 10,07,696.00 against a sanctioned limit of merely Rs. 7.50 lakhs. Thus, he acted in a very arbitrary and reckless manner riding roughshod over the instructions of his higher authorities which has ultimately hit the interest of the Institution adversely. The maximum debit balance in the account had been reached upto Rs. 10,07,696.00 against a sanctioned limit of merely Rs. 7.50 lakhs. Thus, he acted in a very arbitrary and reckless manner riding roughshod over the instructions of his higher authorities which has ultimately hit the interest of the Institution adversely. Shri Ahmed is hereby called upon to explain why necessary departmental action should not be initiated against him for the above lapses within 15 days of receipt of this Memorandum. Otherwise it would be construed that he has nothing to offer as explanation and the management would proceed against him as it deemed just, fit and proper. Sd/- illegible M.R. Guha Regional Manager. To Shri Nabiruddin Ahmed, Branch Manager, Branch Office, GUWA:PRS:DAW:239:2001-02:113 September 13, 2001 CHARGE SHEET Shri Nabiruddin Ahmed, Manager, Regional Office, Guwahati is hereby informed that it has been decided to hold a departmental enquiry against him in regard to the imputation of Misconduct set out in the Articles of charges (Annexure- I). Statement of imputation of Misconduct in support of Article of Charges is also enclosed (Annexure-II). Shri Ahmed is hereby directed to submit within seven days of receipt of this memo, a Written Statement of Defence. Shri Ahmed is informed that the enquiry will be held only in respect of the Article of Charge not admitted by him. He should, therefore, specifically admit or deny each Article of charge. Shri Ahmed is informed that he will be given full opportunity at the enquiry to inspect the documents, which will be filled by the Management along with opportunity to lead evidence, documentary as well as oral. Shri Ahmed, if he so desires, may take the assistance of any officer employee of the Bank in presenting his case before the Inquiring Authority. However, Shri Nabiruddin Ahmed should note that as per Regulation 6(7) of Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, the officer employee shall not take the assistance of any other officer employee who has two pending disciplinary cases on hand in which he has to give assistance. However, Shri Nabiruddin Ahmed should note that as per Regulation 6(7) of Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, the officer employee shall not take the assistance of any other officer employee who has two pending disciplinary cases on hand in which he has to give assistance. Shri Ahmed is further informed that if he does not appear in person before the Inquiring Authority on the date intimated to him or otherwise, or refuses to comply with the orders and directions issued to him, the inquiry is liable to be held ex parte and such orders as may be passed thereupon will be binding on him. Shri Ahmed should note that the Article of Charges listed would constitute misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 3.1 read with Regulation 24 of Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 attracting penalty under Regulation 4 of Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. Sd/- illegible (A.B. RUNGTA) Zonal Manager/Disciplinary Authority. Enclosure I & II. To Shri Nabiruddin Ahmed Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Guwahati." "Ref: ANNEXURE-I Articles of Charges against Shri Nabiruddin Ahmed, Manager, Regional Office, Guwahati. (A) Shri Nabiruddin Ahmed, while working as Branch Manager at Thanachariali branch has committed the following acts of omission and commission: (1) Shri Nabiruddin Ahmed, gave a false introduction of some persons to open their new HSS accounts with the Bank's branch. As a result of this the culprits succeeded in perpetration of fraud by opening fake accounts and later on they utilized these accounts to encash stolen Refund Orders of ITC Classic Finance Ltd. impersonating the actual beneficiary. (2) He had no control over the affairs of HSS Department and its Incharge, which in turn led to perpetration of fraud. (B) Shri Nabiruddin Ahmed, while working as Branch Manager at Dimapur Branch during the period from June, 1998 to January, 2000 has committed the following acts of omission and commission: 1) He has abused his official position by allowing a DOD limit of Rs. 15 lacs to Imsong Supplier against work order/job order. Financial papers submitted by the party do not envisage any Bank loan and no MPBF was available. 2) He disobeyed the instructions of his higher authorities. 3) Shri Ahmed allowed clean advance to Imsong Suppliers. 4) Shri Ahmed enhanced the CC limit of Hill Timber Mart from Rs. 15 lacs to Imsong Supplier against work order/job order. Financial papers submitted by the party do not envisage any Bank loan and no MPBF was available. 2) He disobeyed the instructions of his higher authorities. 3) Shri Ahmed allowed clean advance to Imsong Suppliers. 4) Shri Ahmed enhanced the CC limit of Hill Timber Mart from Rs. 4.00 lacs to Rs. 6.20 lacs to cover up the already overdrawn position. 5) Shri Ahmed credited the proceeds of one MMDC for Rs. 1.00 lac taken as collateral security in the account of Hill Timber Mart to show an improved position of the account. 6) In A/c Hill Timber Mart, Shri Ahmed neither made any efforts to bring down the debit balances within earlier sanctioned limit nor even restricted the drawing in the account within his own sanctioned limit. The account has turned sticky. 7) Present debit balance in account Imsong Suppliers is Rs. 10,74,917.39 (interest charged upto June, 2000) and the account has turned sticky. He has, thus failed to protect the interest of the Bank by not observing the laid down Banking norms and by violating the lending norms. He, therefore, failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence. He is charged under Regulation 3.1 read with Regulation 24 of Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 attracting penalty under Regulation 4 of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976. Sd/- illegible (A.B. RUNGTA) Zonal Manager/Disciplinary Authority. To Shri Nabiruddin Ahmed, Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Guwahati. All these actions have been taken by the Zonal Manager, being the Disciplinary Authority, from the Zonal Office at Guwahati and thereafter by order dated October 31, 2001, the Disciplinary Authority appointed Presiding Officer as well as Inquiry Authority to proceed with the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. 6. During the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner approached the authority by presenting representation dated February 15, 2002 stating that the entire disciplinary proceeding has been initiated for non-compliance of the Circular dated July 5, 1995 issued by the competent authority i.e. the General Manager (PRS), Central Officer, prescribing certain procedure to be followed at the time of initiation of the disciplinary action against its employees by the Bank authority. In reply to the said representation, the authority by communication dated March 4, 2002 informed the petitioner that the office guidelines referred to by him was only applicable to the cases falling under 'Non-Vigilance' and the same was not applicable for Vigilance Cases under which the petitioner's case was dealt with, It was further informed that since the petitioner's case was treated under 'Vigilance Case', the said norms or time frame prescribed in the above referred Circular, were not applicable: 7. For the sake of convenience it would be proper to refer to the said Circular which reads as under: "Circular letter July 5, 1995 CO:PRS:IPR:CIR: 195-96:555 All Zonal/Regional Offices. Initiation of Disciplinary Action and Conduct of Enquiries against Officer Staff. 1. Attention is invited to D.O. letter No. CO:GH:NB 95:11 dated February 15, 1995 advising that wherever explanation of an employee is called, it is desirable that the employee must know the outcome of his explanation i.e. as to whether the Management intends to take disciplinary action against him or not. In no case the employee must be kept in suspense for an indefinite period. We also invite attention to our Circular No. CO:PRS: DAD:95-961:159 dated May 25, 1995 on the subject "Effect of contemplated Disciplinary Action". 2. It has however, been reported that replies so received are still remaining unattended to at various levels and/or the same are being pursued after a lapse of considerable period of issuing the charge-sheet. 3. The matter was re-examined in its entirety and it has since been decided the following guidelines for implementation with immediate effect. 3.1. The officer against whom lapses are alleged will be sent a written communication calling for remarks on the lapses so reported to be submitted within a stipulated period. 3.2. After receiving such reply, the concerned officer will be informed within a period of about 30 days in regard to satisfactory or otherwise of the reply so received or otherwise it will be construed that the reply sent by the member concerned is treated as satisfactory. 3.3. 3.2. After receiving such reply, the concerned officer will be informed within a period of about 30 days in regard to satisfactory or otherwise of the reply so received or otherwise it will be construed that the reply sent by the member concerned is treated as satisfactory. 3.3. If no reply is received from the concerned officer within a stipulated period or if the reply of the concerned officer is not found satisfactory and the same has been communicated to him, a charge sheet will be issued on definite charges which are based on documentary evidence within 2 months from the date of expiry of the stipulated period/from the date of earlier communication conveying the Management's decision on the reply of the member to the written communication so addressed. Provided however, in case the charge sheet is required to be vetted by the Vigilance Department, the period of two months shall be extended further on case to case basis. 3.4. Having issued the charge sheet to the officer within 2 months or within its extended period as the case may be as stated above, the departmental enquiry if warranted shall invariably be initiated and concluded within 6 months from the date of issuance of the charge sheet, unless the delay is on account of the reason attributable to the officer concerned and/or outside agencies. 4. In view of the introduction of the above revised procedure, the authorities concerned at various levels should accord utmost priority to this aspect and should act swiftly without leaving scope to the unions/Associations to represent on the matter. As far as the pending cases are concerned, the period of 30 days/2 months shall reckon from the date of this circular. 5. Zonal/Regional Managers are accordingly advised to take note of the above which come into force with immediate effect for strict compliance and also to ensure to dispose of all the pending cases within a definite time. Sd/- Illegible (N. BALAKRISHNAN) General Manager (PRS)". 8. From a bare perusal of the above Circular, it appears that the Bank authority, having re-examined the entire matter pertaining to the initiation of the disciplinary action and conduct of enquiry against its Officers/Staffs has framed the guidelines to be followed by the concerned authority in taking disciplinary action against any delinquent employee of the Bank. 8. From a bare perusal of the above Circular, it appears that the Bank authority, having re-examined the entire matter pertaining to the initiation of the disciplinary action and conduct of enquiry against its Officers/Staffs has framed the guidelines to be followed by the concerned authority in taking disciplinary action against any delinquent employee of the Bank. It is clearly stated therein that the said issue has been reconsidered in view of the fact that despite certain guidelines framed earlier particularly, Circular dated May 25, 1995, cases of the delinquent employees have not been disposed of within the reasonable time. More particularly, it is observed therein that the replies received by the authority from the Officers/Staffs are still remained unattended to at various levels and the same are being pursued after a lapse of considerable period by issuance of charge sheets. Therefore, the said guidelines is issued asking the Zonal officers and Regional officers to take immediate steps for implementation of the specification mentioned therein. In Clause 3.1 it has been clearly provided that the officer against whom lapses were alleged will be sent a written communication asking him for remarks on the lapses so reported, to be submitted within the stipulated period. Clause 3.2 prescribes that after receiving such reply, the delinquent deserves to be informed as regards the position of his reply within a period of 30 days and if such communication was not sent to the delinquent, the reply so sent by him will be admitted to be treated as satisfactory. Clause 3.3 provides that if the delinquent does not receive any reply within the prescribed period above mentioned or a communication has been sent to him informing that his reply is found to be unsatisfactory, a charge sheet be issued on definite charges based on documentary evidences within a period of 2 months, from the date of expiry of the stipulated period or from the date of earlier communication conveying the Management's decision on the reply of the employee on the written communication so addressed. This Clause has been added with a proviso to the effect that in case charge sheet is required to be vetted by the vigilance department, the time frame of 2 months as mentioned above, shall be extended further on case to case basis. 9. This Clause has been added with a proviso to the effect that in case charge sheet is required to be vetted by the vigilance department, the time frame of 2 months as mentioned above, shall be extended further on case to case basis. 9. After issuance of such guidelines, the Bank Authority has again noticed that in certain zones, the above mentioned Circular dated July 5, 1995 has not been followed scrupulously due to the fact that it has been observed by the Bank Authority that in certain cases, the charge sheets have been issued to the Officers/Staffs after a prolonged period of, say 1 (One) year or above from the date of reply of the said Officers without issuing any Managements' communication as to whether the replies so received from the said Officers/Staffs are satisfactory or otherwise. In view of such fact situation, again on July 10, 1996 another Circular has been issued by the General Manager addressed to all Zonal/Regional Managers and the other disciplinary authorities advising them to ensure implementation of the streamlined procedure as enumerated in the Circular dated July 5, 1995 with a note of warning that if the same is not complied with, the concerned officials responsible for such laxity be dealt with in terms of Bank Regulations. 10. Relying on both the Circulars, Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel has advanced his limited arguments contending that the impugned Disciplinary Proceeding against the petitioner is in gross violation of the Circulars so noted above and as such the same has been vitiated by non-compliance of the guidelines framed and is liable to be quashed. The only contention is that the time frame prescribed in the said circular has simply been given go-bye by the Bank Management. He has also drawn attention of this Court to the Bank Regulations namely, (1) Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (for short 'the Regulations') and (2) Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976. (for short "the D & A Regulations'). His main thrust of submission is that nowhere in the Regulations any procedural provisions for initiation of the proceeding have been prescribed. (for short "the D & A Regulations'). His main thrust of submission is that nowhere in the Regulations any procedural provisions for initiation of the proceeding have been prescribed. The Regulations have, in general, dealt with the provisions relating to observation of secrecy by the officer employee, employment of the members of the family of Bank officers in firms enjoying the Bank's clientage and grant of facilities to such concerns, absence from duty, acceptance of gifts etc. So far as the D & A Regulations is concerned, it provides for penalty major and minor, authority to institute Disciplinary Proceeding and impose penalties, procedure for imposing major penalties and minor penalties, action on the inquiry report, suspension etc. But nowhere in the Regulations the procedure for initial initiation of Disciplinary Proceeding has been provided. That being the position, Mr. Choudhury has tried to impress upon the Court that the guidelines/Circular dated July 5, 1995 itself is the only prescribed procedure to be followed at the time of initiation of the disciplinary action against a delinquent officer and this has been framed only to filling in the vacuum which has been left unnoticed at the time of framing the Regulations. To bolster up his submissions, the learned counsel has relied upon two decisions of the Apex Court namely Nagpur Improvement Trust. v. Yadaorao Jagannath Kumbhare reported in wherein in the last part of the paragraph 8, the Apex Court observed: "While interpreting the provisions Section 21 of the Act, the High Court has lost sight of the general principle of the service jurisprudence that in the absence of any statutory rules governing the service conditions of the employees, the executive instructions and/or decisions taken administratively would operate in the field and appointments/promotions can be made in accordance with such executive instructions/administrative directions......." 11. Taking the aid of paragraphs 56 and 58 of a decision of the Apex Court in a case (Naga Peoples' Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India) reported in Mr. Taking the aid of paragraphs 56 and 58 of a decision of the Apex Court in a case (Naga Peoples' Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India) reported in Mr. Choudhury has contended that since the Regulations do not: contain any procedure for initiation of Disciplinary proceeding, instructions/guidelines issued by the Bank-Respondents furnishing the detailed procedure with specification of time frame for submission of reply to the show cause, its consideration by the Management, communication with regard to its satisfaction and thereafter filing of charge sheet to the delinquent, are binding on the Bank authority and the same cannot be violated to the prejudice of the petitioner. Paragraphs 56 and 58 run as under: "56. In State of U.P. v. Chandra Mohan Nigam this Court, while considering the validity of the Rule 16(3) of All India Services (Death-cum Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, which empowered the Central Government to compulsorily retire a member of All India Service took note of the instructions issued by the Government and observed: "Since Rule 16 (3) itself does not contain any guidelines, directions or criteria, the instructions issued by the Government furnish an essential and salutary procedure for the purpose of securing uniformity in application of the rule. These instructions really fill up the yawning gaps in the provisions and are embedded in the conditions of service. These are binding on the Government and cannot be violated to the prejudice of the government servant." 58. The instructions in the form of "Dos and Don't to which reference has been made by the learned Attorney General have to be treated as binding instructions which are required to be followed by the members of the armed forces exercising powers under the Central Act and a serious note should be taken of violation of the instructions and the persons found responsible for such violation should be suitably punished under the Army Act, 1950." 12. In the instant case, against the show cause dated March 23, 1999, the petitioner submitted his reply on May 26, 1999. Then the show cause dated April 21, 1999 was also replied on May 15, 1999. Thereafter the reply was filed again on November 30, 2000 against the show cause dated October 21/23, 2000. 13. In the instant case, against the show cause dated March 23, 1999, the petitioner submitted his reply on May 26, 1999. Then the show cause dated April 21, 1999 was also replied on May 15, 1999. Thereafter the reply was filed again on November 30, 2000 against the show cause dated October 21/23, 2000. 13. In terms of Clause 3.2 of the Circular dated July 5, 1995, the petitioner ought to have been informed within a period of 30 days from the receipt of his each reply as to whether his reply was accepted satisfactorily or not. It is admitted that no such communication has ever been made to the petitioner by the Bank authority informing about the acceptance or non-acceptance of his replies. Therefore, again in terms of Clause 3(3), a charge sheet ought to have been issued to the petitioner with a definite charge within 2 months from the date of expiry of the stipulated period mentioned herein. But it is evident from record that no such action has been taken by the Bank authority. That apart, as per provision of Clause 3(3) which prescribes for extension of another 2 months period of getting the charge sheet vetted by the vigilance department, no such communication has been placed on record to show that the charge sheet has ever been sent for vetting to the Vigilance Department. Hence, the impugned disciplinary proceeding, according to Mr. Choudhury, ex-facie is illegal and without jurisdiction and violative of the Circular referred to above. 14. The Bank-respondents submitted its affidavit-in-opposition by categorically refuting all the allegations made in the writ petition. 15. Countering the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. A.C. Sarma, learned counsel representing the Bank has advanced mainly two fold argument: Firstly the Circular referred to above prescribes simply the guidelines to be followed for taking of the disciplinary action and it is a policy decision of the Bank and as such the same has no statutory force and is not binding upon the Bank and Secondly, the said Circular has no applicability to the petitioner's case because the case of the petitioner has fallen under vigilance category whereas the Circular has to be attracted to the cases which fall under the non-vigilance category. That apart Mr. That apart Mr. Sarma has further contended that there were two charges issued against the petitioner in the charge sheet dated September 13, 2001 and against both the charges, disciplinary proceeding has been initiated. Referring to the Circular annexed as Annexure R-1 to the Bank's counter affidavit, Mr. Sarma has submitted that this Circular dated May 25, 1995 explicitly provides no time frame will be applicable to the vigilance cases. Referring to another enclosure which is marked as Annexure R-2 to the said counter, being a communication dated September 19, 2001 made by the Zonal Manager to the Vigilance Department, Central Office, it is stated that though the complaint made against the petitioner alleging acceptance of illegal gratification was closed due to withdrawal of such complaint, that does not mean that the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner has also been closed. 16. As regards the non-applicability of the Circular for not having statutory force, Mr. Sarma has referred to the following decisions of the Apex Court. 1. Narendra Kumar Maheshwari v. Union of India reported in and 2. Union of India v. S.L. Abbas reported in. In Narendra Kumar Maheshwari's case (supra), the Apex Court dealt with an issue arising out of Section 3 Capital Issues (Control) Act, 1947. In Paragraph 106 of the judgment, the Apex Court opined that since the guidelines on which the petitioner had relied, were not satisfactory in character, these guidelines were not judicially enforceable and therefore, the competent authority might depart from guidelines where the proper exercise of his discretion so warranted. In S.L. Abbas case (supra) while appreciating the scope of enforceability of the guidelines in case of a transfer matter, the Apex Court held that the executive instructions, such as, for transfer of Government servant, which were in the nature of guidelines, did not confer a legally enforceable right. 17. Banking upon these 2 decisions, Mr. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the Bank-respondents has asserted that since the Circular dated July 5, 1995 including Circular dated July 10, 1996 have no statutory force and the same being merely a guidelines, those are not binding upon the Bank authority and as such the petitioner has no legal right to complain against them for violation of those Circulars. 18. So far the second point of his argument is concerned, Mr. 18. So far the second point of his argument is concerned, Mr. Sarma has categorically stated that the petitioner's case has been referred to Vigilance Department and accordingly, his case has fallen under the category of vigilance offences. According to him, assuming but not admitting that the Circular referred to above has a binding force upon the Bank Authority, the same cannot be made applicable at all in the case in hand because the Circular has no applicability to a case which has fallen under the vigilance category inasmuch as the Circular intends to have its applicability only towards the cases which fall under the non-vigilance category. 19. I have given my anxious consideration to the extensive submissions advanced on behalf of the rival parties. Upon close scrutiny of the materials available on record including the relevant Circulars especially Circular dated July 5, 1995, it appears that the submission advanced on half of the Bank-Respondents cannot be accepted and approved for the following reasons: From an ordinary reading of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, (sic) and the D & A Regulations, it is seen that nowhere in those Regulations, procedure for initiation of the Departmental Proceeding, has been enumerated and therefore, perhaps to fill up the lacuna of not having any prescribed procedure to initiate Disciplinary action against the defaulting employees, the Bank authority with their wisdom has formulated the Circular enunciating a detailed procedure to be adopted by the authority while taking up the initial step of proposed Disciplinary Proceeding against their employees. Keeping in view the differences and irregularities exercised by the disciplinary authorities in taking due care with regard to the reply submitted by the delinquent as well as the follow up action required to be taken after receipt of the reply, the Bank authority has floated various Circulars from time to time as produced. On perusal of the relevant documents which have been produced by the learned counsel representing the Bank on the asking of this Court, it goes to reveal that on several occasions the Bank authority has been taking firm stand as regards the adoption of the procedure for initiation of the departmental proceeding which is manifestly evident from the circular dated May 25, 1995. In the said Circular, the competent authority, making a reference to the earlier Circulars dated March 24, 1995 and April 19, 1995, has instructed all the Zonal Managers and Regional Managers that in a case which has been sent to the vigilance, the time frame so referred in those circulars shall not have any applicability. But despite query made as regards the contents of the Circulars dated March 24, 1995 and April 19, 1995 as referred to above, those circulars have not been produced before this Court. Detaining this Court from laying its hand on the contents and reasons for floating those circulars, the learned counsel for the Bank, heavily relying upon the Circular dated May 25, 1995, has asserted that since the petitioner's case is under vigilance, no time frame specified in the Circular shall be applicable herein. But amazingly after the Circular dated May 25, 1995 the Circular dated July 5, 1995 has been floated reiterating the strict compliance of the time frame. Further there is nothing on record to show as to whether any other Circular has been issued modifying/altering and/or cancelling the Circular dated July 5, 1995. If no such action has been taken by the authority for repealing this Circular, then it should be safely accepted that this is the only Circular in force on which now the authority is falling back upon for the commencement of the departmental proceeding. If that is so, an ordinary perusal of the Circular does not indicate any differentiation/classification of any offence to be included under the head of vigilance offence or non-vigilance offence. Only in the proviso of Clause 3.3, it has been provided that in case the charge sheet is required to be vetted by the Vigilance Department, the period of 2 months shall be extended further on case to case basis. On pointed query from this Court, Mr. Sarma has failed to lead the Court to the source of making such classification/or differentiation of offences of vigilance and non-vigilance category. Nor has such document whatsoever, been produced before this Court to dispel the doubt of the Court as to whether any such classification of offences does exist. Taking all the aspects into account, it can be firmly held that this Circular dated July 5, 1995 is the only and sole source for embracing the entire procedure to be followed for initiation of a departmental proceeding. Taking all the aspects into account, it can be firmly held that this Circular dated July 5, 1995 is the only and sole source for embracing the entire procedure to be followed for initiation of a departmental proceeding. Reason for relevancy and importance of the Circular is obvious. Because the Regulations governing employees including the petitioner do not prescribe or disclose any procedure for taking such action of disciplinary nature. 20. Now coming to the issue of applicability of the Circular in the instant case, it appears that since the Regulations are silent as regards the procedural aspect the guidelines which become the sole basis for taking the preliminary steps prior to initiation of departmental proceeding against an employee, shall have the binding force. This can be easily inferred from the fact that if these guidelines are not binding as submitted on behalf of the Bank, then how and why the Bank authority is applying this Circular in case of non-vigilance offences which is not at all the subject-matter of the said Circular. Admittedly since the Bank authority has exclusively been relying on this guidelines to begin with the initiation of departmental proceeding accepting its applicability to non-vigilance cases, this Court has no hesitation to hold that this Circular has its absolute applicability and potent effectiveness laying the procedural provisions in regard to pre-stage of origination of disciplinary action and the same would operate in the field in absence of any statutory rules, and the initiation of the disciplinary action be taken in accordance with the Circular dated July 5, 1995. This Court has taken this view in the light of the observations of the Apex Court in Nagpur Improvement Trust (supra), and Naga Peoples' Movement of Human Rights (supra). 21. Besides it may also be noted though the petitioner has replied against all those 3 show cause notices, no communication/response whatsoever prescribed in the Circular has been sent to him within time frame informing whether his replies are found to be satisfactory or not. Even the charge sheet is also issued on September 13, 2001 after a lapse of 1 year contrary to the time frame fixed in the said Circular. Moreso, records do not show that at any point of time, the charge sheet has been sent for vetting by the Vigilance Department. Even the charge sheet is also issued on September 13, 2001 after a lapse of 1 year contrary to the time frame fixed in the said Circular. Moreso, records do not show that at any point of time, the charge sheet has been sent for vetting by the Vigilance Department. What has been revealed from the record is that before submitting the charge sheet, the Zonal Manager, Guwahati on September 19, 2001 has written to the Vigilance Department, Central Office at Mumbai informing that as per report dated May 18, 2001 received by the Bank wherein the police have suspected involvement of the petitioner under Sections 468/420 IPC in opening two bogus HSS accounts, the Zonal Office is of the opinion that mala fide is discernible on the part of the petitioner for which a charge sheet has already been issued on September 13, 2001. This communication makes it abundantly clear that the charge sheet has not been sent for vetting as required under the proviso of Clause 3(3) of the Circular. 22. Prior to above correspondence, as revealed from the records, it is seen that the Central Office on August 16, 2001 wrote to Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, Guwahati advising them to forward all desired information along with the action initiated by them as regards the matters pending against the petitioner so as to enable the Head Office to close the matters which were pending since long. It would be relevant to refer to this communication which runs as follows: Vigilance Department Confidential Co: VEG: 2001-2002/692 August 16, 2001. Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, Guwahati. Matters pending against Sri N. Ahmed, Manager of Dimapur under RO Upper Assam. On scrutiny of our record, we observe that complaint received against Shri N. Ahmed lodged by Shri Achami (borrower of Dimapur branch) is still pending for want of reply of our letter No. CO/VIG/99-00/2433 dated September 29, 1999 and also for your specific recommendation for closure of complaint. Further we may also inform that we have not received your comments in respect of Shri N. Ahmed who is involved in opening the two bogus accounts, in which stolen instruments were fraudulently collected. Under the aforesaid circumstances, you are advised to forward the desired information along with action initiated by you in both the matters, so as to enable us to close the matters which are pending since long. Under the aforesaid circumstances, you are advised to forward the desired information along with action initiated by you in both the matters, so as to enable us to close the matters which are pending since long. As regard the non-receipt of our letter No. 397 dated May 6, 2000 (Ref. Your Letter No. 109 dated August 1, 2001 (Annexure-III)) we are forwarding copy of the same along with copies of our letters No. 2433 and No. 3178 for your necessary reference. You are once again advised to look into the matter and confirm compliance. Sd/- P.K. Singha Dy. General Manager." 23. Since no action was taken by the Zonal Office against the petitioner so far, it may be inferred that only after receipt of the above letter, the charge sheet has been served against the petitioner on September 13, 2001. On the other hand, the Central Office, vide communication dated October 30, 2001, in reply to the letter dated September 19, 2001 directed the Zonal Office to initiate Departmental Inquiry immediately though the charge sheet was already issued to the petitioner on September 13, 2001. 24. Therefore, it is felt that since the entire action for initiation of disciplinary proceeding has been taken without complying the time frame as prescribed in the procedure stipulated in the guidelines/Circular having its binding force upon the Bank Management. 25. In a decision of a case in the State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna reported in AIR 2001 SC 343 : 2001 (2) SCC 330 , the Apex Court, dealing with the scope of quashment of charge sheet against a delinquent officer observed in paragraph 34 which reads as follows: "34.......... It is well settled in service jurisprudence that the authority concerned has to apply its mind upon receipt of reply to the charge sheet or show cause as the case may be, as to whether a further inquiry is called for. In the event upon deliberations and due consideration it is in the affirmative - the inquiry follows but not otherwise and it is this part of service jurisprudence on which reliance was placed by Mr. Subramanium and on that score, strongly criticised conduct of the respondents (sic appellants) herein and accused them of being biased. We do find some justification in such a criticism upon consideration of the materials on record." 26. Subramanium and on that score, strongly criticised conduct of the respondents (sic appellants) herein and accused them of being biased. We do find some justification in such a criticism upon consideration of the materials on record." 26. Herein it is apparent on record that there are 3 show cause notices issued to the petitioner on different dates as already noticed almost on similar and identical allegations. Despite his due replies to those three show cause notices, no response has been communicated to the petitioner as regards the satisfactoriness of those replies. In view of the observation made in V.K. Khanna's case, (supra), it may be said that the authorities have not acted bona fide. Perhaps they would not have taken any action against the petitioner, had there been no communication dated August 16, 2001 from the Head Office asking to forward the desired information along with action initiated by the Zonal Office as regards the matter of the petitioner so as to enable them to close the matters which were pending since long. 27. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in its entirety as well as having regard to the decisions as mentioned above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the action taken against the petitioner suffers from illegality and biasness. 28. In view of what has been discussed, observed and indicated hereinabove, the impugned disciplinary proceeding along with the charge sheet dated September 13, 2001 shall stand quashed. 29. Consequently, this writ petition succeeds and stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.