JUDGMENT : SYAM KUMAR V.M., J. 1. This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 17.01.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.1927 of 2012. Appellants were the respondents in the W.P.(C). 2. The W.P.(C) was filed by the respondent, an officer of the 3 rd appellant Bank, seeking to quash Exts.P1 and P3 orders, whereby a major penalty was imposed on him for the alleged misconduct. The crux of the allegation against him was that he had filed a W.P.(C) before this Court, exhibiting therewith the transcript of an interview (Ext.P8), which had allegedly been surreptitiously recorded by him using his mobile phone while the interview was on. The major penalty imposed on him was a reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay by 6 stages for a period of 5 years with cumulative effect. The major penalty imposed on him was a reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay by 6 stages for a period of 5 years with cumulative effect. Contending inter alia that the punishment prescribed as per the relevant Regulation in the South Malabar Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2001 (for short 2001 Regulations'), was only a reduction to a lower grade or post or a lower scale in timescale and the punishment imposed on him was grossly disproportionate that too while an appeal filed by him was pending, the respondent had filed the W.P. (C) seeking the following reliefs: “i) issue a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P1 and Ext.P3 orders and to quash Ext.P1 and Ext.P3 in the interest of justice ; ii) declare that the suspension order passed against the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal, unjust and against the provisions of Law, Regulations and Rules ; iii) declare that the inquiry conducted and the Inquiry Report filed against the petitioner herein are biased vitiated illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice ; iv) declare and order that the petitioner is entitled to his period of suspension to be treated as duty with salary and all other service benefits ; v) Further declare that production of Ext.P8 transcript of the audio-recorded version of the interview in W.P.(C) No.20987 of 2008 before this Hon'ble High Court is not an unauthorised publication as alleged by the respondents ; vi) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction commanding the 2 nd respondent to dispose Ext.P2, Ext.P17 and Ext.P18 appeals filed by the petitioner within a time frame after giving the petitioner an opportunity for being heard ; vii) To grant any other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case ; viii) Reliefs and costs.” 3. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, allowed the Writ Petition and set aside Exts.P1 and P3 orders issued against the respondent. It was further directed that all the consequential benefits to the respondent shall be calculated and disbursed to him within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, allowed the Writ Petition and set aside Exts.P1 and P3 orders issued against the respondent. It was further directed that all the consequential benefits to the respondent shall be calculated and disbursed to him within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment. Aggrieved by the said judgment, appellants, the Bank and its functionaries have filed this Writ Appeal. 4. Heard Sri. Jawahar Jose, Advocate for the appellants and Sri.Prasant Sugathan, Advocate for the respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the respondent had admitted that he had audio-recorded the interview proceedings without obtaining any prior permission. It is submitted that paragraph 18 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules of 2001 Regulations stipulate that every employee shall maintain strict secrecy regarding the Bank's affairs and shall not divulge any information of a confidential nature either to a member of the public or to the Bank’s staff unless compelled to do so by judicial or other authority. It is contended that, as per the Regulation, to constitute a misconduct, the employee should divulge information of a confidential nature to the public or even to the Bank staff. The recording of the interview amounts to an act of diluting the secrecy, and it shows the predetermined mind of the respondent with malicious intentions. This, according to the learned counsel, by itself, would amount to misconduct. Further, producing the recordings before the court amounted to publication i.e., divulging the information of a confidential nature before the public. It is thus contended that the learned Single Judge ought to have found that the act of the respondent of ‘recording’ and that of ‘publication’ was beyond his authority, and the said act by itself is a breach of discipline and trust and was therefore a misconduct. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel on the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Others v. T.K. Raju, (2006) 3 SCC 143 to contend that the word misconduct is a generic term and it has to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context wherein the term occurs, having regard to the scope of the Act or the statute which is being construed. Misconduct literally means wrong conduct or improper conduct. Misconduct literally means wrong conduct or improper conduct. The learned counsel thus terms the penalty imposed valid and subsisting and one rendered in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge erred in properly construing the same and hence the judgment is fit to be set aside. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent defended the judgment of the learned Single Judge and submitted that the same does not call for any interference. It is contended that the respondent was targeted by the Bank for the reason that he had preferred a complaint to the Finance Minister, and since he was part of the petitions filed before this Court in connection with the selection process of promotion to Scale III in the years 2006 and 2008. The charges levelled against the respondent that he had produced the transcript of the voice record of the interaction between the petitioner and the interviewer as evidence before this court, according to the learned counsel, is not an offence as per the 2001 Regulations, as there is no specific provision which bars the recording of audio of interviews conducted for selection to the higher post. It is contended that during the enquiry, the enquiry officer had acted in a biased manner and prevented the petitioner from effectively cross-examining the witnesses. It is further contended that the punishment imposed was not specifically provided for in the Bank’s Service Regulation, and the punishment imposed was not available at the time of initiation of disciplinary proceedings in the year 2008. The provision under which the punishment was imposed had been introduced into the Regulation only in the revised Regulations of 2010, which came into force with effect from 22.09.2010. It is further contended that the Regulations and Rules governing the conduct of an employee are presumed to be operative, prospectively. The initiation of disciplinary proceedings, it is contended, can take place from the time when the charge sheet is issued to the employee and an employee cannot be punished for the conduct that was not considered as a violation at the time when the incident occurred. Reliance was also placed by the learned counsel on the dictum laid down in State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. Ch. Gandhi, (2013) 5 SCC 111 and Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1 . Reliance was also placed by the learned counsel on the dictum laid down in State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. Ch. Gandhi, (2013) 5 SCC 111 and Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1 . The learned Single Judge taking note of the above had correctly set aside Exts.P1 and P3 and the judgment does not require any interference. 7. We have heard both sides in detail and have considered the contentions put forth. We note that the learned Single Judge had specifically noted 2001 Regulations as well as the Regulations of 2010, and the difference between the both when it comes to the alleged misconduct in question. Regulation 21 (3) of the Regulation of 2010, which provided that no officer or employee shall make any audio or video or photo recording of any official matter or publish or cause to publish any official matter without the prior permission of the competent authority, it was rightly concluded by the learned Single Judge, was not in existence at the time of initiation of the proceedings against the respondent. Recording of an official matter or publishing or causing to publish any official matter was not misconduct as per the 2001 Regulations till it was made so under the new provision viz., 21 (3) of the 2010 Regulation. We note that the learned Single Judge had also, after a detailed consideration of the contentions put forth, concluded that the maintenance of secrecy, which is an obligation of every officer or employee of the Bank, is about the Bank’s affairs to its constituents, and the employee has been prohibited from divulging directly or indirectly any information of a confidential nature, either to a member of the public or to the Bank staff itself. The learned Single Judge concluded that, at the most, the admitted act of the respondent recording the interview and producing its transcripts could be termed as an impropriety, and it cannot be termed as a misconduct as per the norms that existed at the relevant point of time, especially since there existed a lacuna with respect to the definition of misconduct in the Regulations. It was also rightly noted by the learned Single Judge that only a general caution to the officers or employees to maintain the strict secrecy regarding the Bank's affairs or its constituents was in place at that point of time, and the same could mean to imply maintaining secrecy with respect to the financial transactions of the Bank, that being the main business of the Bank, as well as the details of the customers etc. If it was intended to include matters coming under the regime of administration that touch upon the service of employees, the same would have been specified in the Regulations. The Regulation, as it stood then, did not envisage such conduct as one within discipline. It is also noted by the learned Single Judge that the alleged misconduct is not sustainable since the respondent had produced a transcript of the recorded voice in the court as an exhibit and had not divulged the secrecy of the interview among the Bank staff. Following the dictum in Shreya Singhal (supra), the learned Judge had reiterated that the Rule or Regulation should provide sufficient notice as to what is prevented or what is misconduct and it should be evident to the employee from the Rule or the Regulation, which should not be ambiguous. The said conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge are valid and legally justified. Nothing has been pointed out to challenge the sustainability of the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge. Quashing of Exts.P1 and P3, by the learned Single Judge, is in accordance with law and the consequential directions issued are also valid. We thus find no reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed.