(Civil Appeal No. 7039 of 2025), delivered on 20 May 2025.
2025 7 SCR 42
The case concerned the validity of disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Union Bank of India against one of its employees, A.M. Kulshrestha, particularly regarding the timing of a charge sheet in relation to Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) advice1.
Background of the Case A.M. Kulshrestha, the appellant, served the Union Bank of India for approximately 34 years, from 1984 until his scheduled retirement on 30 June 201923. On 21 August 2018, less than a year before his superannuation, the Bank suspended him, alleging that as Regional Head, he had taken a casual approach in sanctioning credit proposals for 16 accounts34.
Following his suspension, the appellant received two show-cause notices in January and March 201945. When his requests to revoke the suspension were not addressed, he filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the suspension order56.
During these proceedings, the Bank’s General Manager and Executive Director filed affidavits. The General Manager’s affidavit (dated 23 May 2019) explicitly stated that the case had a “vigilance angle” and that the matter had been referred to the CVC for “first stage advice” under Regulation 19 of the Union of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976, and that this advice was still awaited5…. The Executive Director’s affidavit (dated 13 June 2019) further affirmed that the charge sheet would be issued “on receipt of the advice of CVC”5….
Despite these statements, the Bank served an ante-dated charge sheet (dated 10 June 2019) on the appellant on 18 June 2019, without having received the CVC’s first-stage advice910. The High Court subsequently quashed the suspension order as “arbitrary and illegal” due to the significant delay in serving the charge sheet1011. However, the Bank informed the appellant that disciplinary proceedings would continue, impacting his pay and retiral benefits1011. The appellant then challenged this charge sheet before the High Court, which dismissed his petition, stating that seeking CVC advice before issuing a charge sheet was not mandatory12.
Issue for Consideration by the Supreme Court The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the disciplinary proceedings, including the charge sheet, should be quashed, particularly given the Bank’s actions regarding the CVC’s first-stage advice1.
Supreme Court’s Findings and Reasoning The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the disciplinary proceedings and charge sheet. Its reasoning focused on the Bank’s own conduct and the interpretation of relevant regulations:
1. Mandatory CVC Consultation: The Court noted that Regulation 19 states the Bank “shall consult the Central Vigilance Commission wherever necessary, in respect of all disciplinary cases having a vigilance angle”13. The CVC’s guidelines specify that “first stage advice” is sought before the issuance of a charge sheet1415.
2. Bank’s Admission and Contradiction: The Court found it unnecessary to delve into whether Regulation 19 was strictly mandatory or discretionary in general terms, because the Bank itself had “acknowledged that the case had a vigilance angle and consultation with the CVC is necessary”16. The Bank had, on record, stated under oath that it was awaiting CVC advice and would issue the charge sheet only after receiving it815.
3. Arbitrary and Mala Fide Action: The Court determined that the Bank’s action of serving the charge sheet before receiving and considering the CVC’s advice, and despite its earlier solemn statements, was “mala fide and arbitrary”14…. It highlighted that the appellant, who had 34 years of “unblemished service,” was being “victimised at the fag end of his … career”17.
4. High Court’s Error: The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had “committed a gross error” in holding that Regulation 19 was not mandatory, as this point became “irrelevant” given the Bank’s own acknowledgement of the necessity for CVC advice18.
Conclusion The Supreme Court found that it would be unjust to allow the disciplinary proceedings to continue, especially as almost six years had passed since the appellant’s superannuation19.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court quashed and set aside the disciplinary proceedings, including the charge sheet dated 10 June 20191920. The appellant was deemed entitled to all his retirement benefits as if he had superannuated on 30 June 2019, though he would not receive back wages. The Bank was directed to release these benefits within three months19…. The appeal was thus allowed2021.
