Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 974 (AP)

S Krishnaiah v. State Bank of India

2022-10-10

V.SUJATHA

body2022
ORDER : 1. The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “to issue a Writ, Order or Directions(s) more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein in proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings vide No.DPC/R2/115 dated 28.12.2017 without clearly setting forth the circumstances appearing against me in the charge sheet dated 13.12.2017 as being illegal arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 of the Constitution of India besides violative of Clause 12 of Annexure to the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002 r/w Instructions 22 of the Discipline and Disciplinary Proceedings of the State Bank of India and consequently set aside the Charge Sheet dated 13.12.2017”. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined in the services of the State Bank of India on 01.12.1995 as Messenger in HAL Campus Branch, Balanagar, Hyderabad and worked up to the year, 2000. Thereafter, in the month of September, 2009, he was promoted as Assistant Cashier, in Kurnool District. Subsequently, he was transferred to State Bank of India, Vajrakaroor Branch, Ananthapur District on 28.02.2015. 3. While the petitioner was working at Vajrakaroor Branch, Aanthapur District, a punishment of “reducing the pay scale by Two stages” was imposed vide Memorandum No.DPC/R-11/83, dated 14.01.2015 by the 2nd respondent on 20.07.2015, which was further confirmed by the 3rd respondent in the appeal preferred by the petitioner vide orders dated 02.05.2019. 4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that while working at Vajrakaroor Branch, on receipt of two complaints dated 04.04.2017 and 05.05.2017 against the petitioner, the 2nd respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 13.06.2017 and as well as dated 24.10.2017 to the petitioner calling upon his explanation, for which, the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 27.06.2017. Thereafter, a charge sheet dated 13.12.2017 was issued, for which also the petitioner submitted his explanation on 22.12.2017. Being not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings vide No.DPC/R2/115 dated 28.12.2017, wherein the petitioner was directed to attend before the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, a charge sheet dated 13.12.2017 was issued, for which also the petitioner submitted his explanation on 22.12.2017. Being not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings vide No.DPC/R2/115 dated 28.12.2017, wherein the petitioner was directed to attend before the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, vide letter No.IA/PRR/2016-2017/16 dated 07.01.2018, the petitioner was directed to attend the preliminary hearing on 24.01.2018 at 10.30 a.m., and regular hearing on 25.01.2018 at the premises of State Bank of India, Vajrakaroor branch and also stated that if the petitioner fails to attend the said enquiry, the enquiry will be held as exparte. 5. Challenging the same, on the ground that the charge sheet was issued contrary to the Instruction No.22 of Discipline and Disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition. 6. When this Writ Petition came for admission, this Court has passed an Order on 09.03.2019 granting Interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings vide No.DPC/R2/115, dated 28.12.2017, is as follows: “there shall be Interim Order as prayed for”. 7. The 2nd respondent have filed vacate stay petition along with the counter admitting the facts as contended by the petitioner and submitted that the charge sheet dated 13.12.2017 is strictly in accordance with the service regulations and further contended that the instruction No.22 of the Discipline and Disciplinary proceedings etc., referred by the petitioner does not pertain to the service regulations and in fact they are only internal instructions by way of guidance to the functionaries while conducting disciplinary proceedings. He further contended that the charge sheet is served in accordance with the service regulations, which specifically refers with specific imputations and nature of misconduct, covered by “para J” of the Memorandum of settlement dated 10.04.2002, and as such, the allegations made by the petitioner are totally devoid of merits and requested to dismiss this Writ Petition. 8. Further, the respondents while arguing that the charge sheet need not be specific relied upon a judgment reported in Krishna Chanra Tandon Vs. Union of India, (1974) 4 SCC 374 , wherein, the court observed the following: “there is no specific format of a charge sheet and there is no magic in the word charge sheet. It is enough if the memo clearly shows the imputations and heads under which the disciplinary action was contemplated. Union of India, (1974) 4 SCC 374 , wherein, the court observed the following: “there is no specific format of a charge sheet and there is no magic in the word charge sheet. It is enough if the memo clearly shows the imputations and heads under which the disciplinary action was contemplated. In this instant case several charges were clearly set out and the necessary particulars on which charges were based were also set out in details attached to them. We are, therefore, not at all impressed by the arguments that there was in reality no charge sheet which contemplated a formal enquiry. Nor are we impressed by the second part of the argument namely viz., that the Appellant was prejudiced as the punishment contemplated was not refer to. We must point out that Appellant knew from the beginning that disciplinary contemplated against him and the very fact that charges were drawn up and he offered the opportunity to show-cause why the disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated”. 9. and accordingly requested to dismiss the Writ Petition as devoid of merits. 10. Heard Sri.T.Kumar Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and of Sri.Kota Venkata Rama Rao, learned counsel for Respondents No.1 to 3. 11. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned charge sheet was issued to the petitioner contrary to the Instruction No.22 of Discipline and Disciplinary proceedings. On perusal of the record, the contents of the charge sheet issued to the petitioner on 13.12.2017 are reads as follows: “please show cause why disciplinary action should not be initiated against you for the following irregularities, alleged to have been committed by you while you were working at Vajrakarur Branch during the material period. The irregularities/lapses that have so far come to light and detailed in the statement of allegations enclosed would indicate that: ALLEGATION-1: We have received two complaints dated 04.04.2017 and 05.05.2017 against you from the customers of Vajrakarur Branch. It has been alleged that you have misbehaved with the customers of the Vajrakarur Branch, which resulted in numerous complaints by the customers against you. 02. It has been alleged that you have misbehaved with the customers of the Vajrakarur Branch, which resulted in numerous complaints by the customers against you. 02. Your above acts are prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and are acts of gross misconduct in terms of para 5(j) of Annexure to the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002 on Disciplinary Action Procedure for workmen in the Bank in suppression of all the erstwhile provisions relating to Disciplinary Action procedure for workmen in the Bank. You are, therefore, required to submit to me your statement of defense in writing to the above charges within 10(ten) days from the date of receipt of this memorandum by you. If written statement of defence is not received from you within the stipulated time, it would be construed that you have no explanation to offer in your defense and you will be proceeded against accordingly, in the matter. 03. In this connection, you are permitted to verify the relevant records/documents at our Vajrakarur Branch, if you so desire, in the uninterrupted presence of the custodian of the documents. However, you are not permitted to take copy of any of the documents and or make any notings on the documents pursued by you. 04. Please acknowledge receipt of the duplicate hereof. The instructions that are to be followed while framing charges are as follows: ‘Instruction No.22 of the Discipline and Disciplinary proceedings is as follows: ‘The charge sheet should be specific and should set all the relevant particulars. It should convey the exact nature of the alleged offence by giving details, like the nature and place of the incident, the date and time etc….Vide Corporate Centre Letter No.CDO/PM/1421/CIR/82 dated 11-02-2000, articles of charge, together with a statement of allegations on which they are based, list of document, and witness relied on, and as far as possible, copies of such documents and statements of witness, if any shall be communicated in writing to the officer”. The charge sheet should essentially contain the following ingredients: (a) The details about the facts constituting the charge; (b) A reference to the relevant conduct rules or code of conduct under which the particular omission or commission has been defined as a misconduct; (c) The details in regard to the employee’s previous record in case the past records are to be relied upon; (d) The specific time-limit within which the concerned employee is required to submit his reply to the charge sheet. (e) Adherence to any other stipulation in the Conduct Rules or Code of Conduct specifically provided for by the Organisation while issuing the charge sheet.” 12. During the course of arguments, the counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this court, under Para 23.5.4 of the procedure for taking disciplinary action of Award Staff, which reads as follows: “A charge sheet is an important document and, therefore, great care should be exercised in the preparation thereof. The charges framed should be precise, specific and not vague. The charge sheet should clearly state what the employee is accused of and where a charge relating to a particular incident is framed, brief description of the incident, together with complete details such as time and date of the incident should be given. If the employee is accused of disorderly behaviour or discourtesy to superiors, then the exact words used by the employee which are considered as discourteous or disorderly behaviour should be furnished.” 13. A perusal of the said charge sheet, it does not disclose the contents of the complaint received by the respondent-Bank and also does not disclose the name of the complainant or the nature of the complaint. Further, it is clear that the procedure as contemplated under Para 23.5.4 of the procedure for taking disciplinary action of Award Staff, has not been followed by the respondent authorities while framing the said charge sheet. The charge sheet itself is not clear as to what is the complaint made against the petitioner for which, the petitioner has to submit his explanation and when the said charge sheet itself is vague, the same can be treated as bad in law and as such is liable to be set aside. 14. The charge sheet itself is not clear as to what is the complaint made against the petitioner for which, the petitioner has to submit his explanation and when the said charge sheet itself is vague, the same can be treated as bad in law and as such is liable to be set aside. 14. In view of the above observation, this court is of the considered opinion to allow the Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings vide No.DPC/R2/115, dated 28.12.2017 as well as the charge sheet dated 13.12.2017, however, leaving it open to the respondents No.2 and 3 to initiate the disciplinary proceedings, if any, against the petitioner by following the procedure as contemplated under Para 23.5.4 of the procedure for taking disciplinary action of Award Staff within a period of three(03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 15. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.