Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1626 (MAD)

R. Prabhakaran v. Vijaya Bank

2012-03-30

K.CHANDRU

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to forbear the respondent from proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with Regulation 6 of Vijaya Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1981 pursuant to the charge sheet dated 17.4.2007. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 22.5.2007. Pending the writ petition, an interim stay was granted. On notice from this court, the respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 31.3.2009. 3. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was initially working as a Clerk governing by various Awards and bipartite settlements. He was placed under suspension on 7.7.2006 for grave misconducts. On 30.3.2007, the disciplinary authority had revoked his suspension and he was allowed to join duty. At present, the petitioner is working as an Assistant Manager at Dindigul Branch of the respondent Bank. He was subsequently given a charge memo, dated 17.4.2007 in terms of Regulation 6 of Vijaya Bank Officers Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981. He had also submitted his defence statement on 16.5.2007 denying the charges. 4. The petitioner's contentions are twofold. Firstly, the customers have withdrawn the complaints. The Bank has taken the stand that the same cannot be a ground to drop the charges against the petitioner. The second contention was that since the misconducts alleged arose when the petitioner was the Award staff, the procedure to be followed is one of disciplinary procedure found under the bipartite settlement and not under the Discipline and Appeal Regulations of the Bank. The stand of the bank was that though the misconducts were committed when he was the Award Staff, since the charges were framed when he was holding the officer post, it can only refer to the Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations. Though the petitioner relied upon a judgment of this court in M.N.Pavithran Vs. Central Bank of India reported in 1985 (1) LLJ 26 , it is submitted by the bank that subsequent to the earlier settlement, a further settlement has been taken containing different provisions. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance upon a division bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Chief General Manager-cum-Disciplinary Authority, State Bank of India Vs. S.Yesudas reported in 1998 (6) ALT 1 . 5. The learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance upon a division bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Chief General Manager-cum-Disciplinary Authority, State Bank of India Vs. S.Yesudas reported in 1998 (6) ALT 1 . It was held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in paragraph 6 as follows: "6.) With respect, we are unable to share with the view of the learned Judge. The conclusion of the learned Judge on this aspect proceeds on the premise that the Award Staff, that is to say, the workmen, have some sort of vested right to have their charges framed and enquiry made in accordance with the disciplinary regulations governing the workmen irrespective of their elevation in status as Officer/Supervisory Staff. The logical consequence of accepting this view is that if a misconduct had been committed by an employee who rose to the rank of an Officer, while he was a workman, he should shed his character as Officer and assume the position of a workman till the domestic enquiry is over. We find no legal support in any provision of law much less there is any rationale for the view taken by the learned single Judge. It is true that if the charged employee concerned did not secure promotion and remain as an Award Staff, he could have got the advantage of being proceeded with under the disciplinary provisions contained in the Award / Settlement which are in some respects more favourable to the employee. But, that does not mean that even after the employee rises to the level of an Officer, the same Old Regulations governing the workmen should continue to apply to him in respect of the past misconducts. Such disadvantage, if any, is a necessary concomitant of his service career. An employee cannot possibly contend that as he progresses in his service career, he would only have the advantages and privileges, but disown all that which is not beneficial to him...." 6. The Bank also got an opinion from the Indian Banks' Association by a communication, dated 13.1.2003, which reads as follows: "2.) Disciplinary action initiated against an officer employee for a misconduct which has occurred prior to the promotion of the employee to the officer cadre, shall be in terms of the procedure laid down in Regulation 6 or 8 of Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976. This is in view of the deletion of the earlier provisions in Bipartite Settlement as is evidence from the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10th April 2002 on Disciplinary Action and Procedure therefor. 3.) As regards imposition of punishment in terms of Clause 6(e) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10th April 2002, it will be in order for the bank to specify that the reduction is with or without cumulative effect." 7. In this context, it is necessary to refer to a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Air India Cabin Crew Association and others Vs. Union of India and others reported (2012) 1 SCC 619 , wherein the Supreme Court held that once the workman got promotion, he ceases to be a workman and even the earlier settlements governing service conditions will have to disappear. In paragraph 72, the Supreme Court had observed as follows: "72.) We are also unable to accept the further submission made on behalf of the appellants that those workmen who had been promoted to the executive category would continue to be governed by the settlements arrived at when they were workmen and were represented by the Association. In our view, once an employee is placed in the executive cadre, he ceases to be a workman and also ceases to be governed by settlements arrived at between the Management and the workmen through the trade union concerned. It is not a question of an attempt made by such employees to wriggle out of the settlements which had been arrived at prior to their elevation to the executive cadre, which, by operation of law, cease to have any binding force on the employee so promoted by the Management." 8. In the light of the same, there is no substance in the stand taken by the petitioner. Hence the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.