The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. RAVI KIRAN SINGH Counsel for the Respondents: SRI G. VIDYA SAGAR, SR. COUNSEL REP. FOR Ms. M SHALINI The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.266O8 of 2o22 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is hled seeking the following relief: "...to issue an order, direction or ui| more partianlarlg one iL the nature oJ Wit of Mandamus declaing that the ddion of the Respondents in issuing final order dated 18.05.2022 bg imposing penaltg "Compulsoilg retired frorn Bqnk's Seruice" to the petitioner without follotuing due procedure is illegal, arbttrary, uiolatiue of principles of natural Justice, uiolatton of UCO Bank Offtcer Emplogees' (Dbcipline and Appeal) Regulattons, 1976, unconstttutional and consequentlA direct tLE respondents to conduct de rtouo enquiry in to the said allegations against the petitioner in accordance uith lau gouerning the same bg following tlw due process and to pttss. . .'

2. Heard Sri P. Ravi Kiran Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel, representing Ms. M. Shalini, learned Stalding Counsel for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while the petitioner was working as Assistant Branch Head/Chief Malager at Guntur branch, he was placed under suspension ot 19.O3.2O20, pending disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued on

18.O4.2O2O, alleging that while the petitioner was working as Chief Manager and Assistant Bralch Head at Guntur branch during the period from 22.06.20 17 to 18.O3.2O2O and as Joint Sanctioning Authority during the period frorn 01.07.2019 to 31.12.2019, he had committed certain 2 PK, J W.P.Nc 26608 of 2022 irregularities 1n recommending and jointly sanctioning advilnces. In response to the said show-cause notice, the petitioner sulrmitted his explanation on lti.o7.2o2o. However, without considerin{ the said expla-nation, a Char-ge Sheet dated O5'O2'2O27 was issued lraming as many aS four chargt:s with eighty six imputations of miscondu,:t, followed byacorrigendumtotheChargesheetthatwasissuecion(|9.o2.2o21. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his explanatiol on 12.o2.21)2 I , stating that his earlier explanation dated 16 'O7 '2O2O, be treatr:d as the explanationtotheChargeSheet.Itisfurthersubmittedthaton 15.02.202|, a secor-.d Corrigendum to the Charge Sheet dated 05.o2.2o2| was issued, without considering the explanation of the petitioner. Subsequently, an e:rquiry ofhcer was appointed on 18 02 20"'11, and the enquiry ofhcer conducted the enquiry contrary to the rrles in force and Submittedtheenquiryreporton|o.o1.2022'holdingcharge'lasproved, charges-I arrd IV a.s not proved and charge-lll as partly provccl' However' on O1.O2.2O22, the disciplinary authority communicated a dissent note, holding the charges-Il to IV a,lso as proved, and instrucLed the petitioner to submit his explanation, for which, the petitioner submitl ed another explanation on 25.02.2022. However, once again, without considering the said explanation, the disciplinary authority has impose:1 a major I PKJ W.P.No.2660A of 2022 punishment of compulsory retirement from service vide impugned proceedings dated 18.05.2022.

4. .lt is further submitted that the petitioner has worked as the Branch Head of Rural Bralches and the nature of advances in small branches are mostly gold loans and small loans only. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted at the Guntur Branch as Assistant Branch Head only to assist the main Branch Head, and he neither had any lending powers nor the discretion for sanctioning or rejecting a loan. He was only an assistant to the Branch Head without any powers. Therefore, the charges leveled against the petitioner are without any basis and are perverse in nature.

5. Learned counsel contended that the Article of Charges which was issued against the petitioner does not contain the list of documents and list of witnesses, which is contrary to Regulation 6 (3) of the UCO Bank Oflicer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (for short, 'the Regulations, 1976'). Further, the action of respondents in issuing the corrigenda to the charge sheet, dated O9.O2.2O22 and 15.O2.2022, is also in utter violation of the regulations of the respondent-Bank. It is further contended the enquiry was not conducted in a fair manner, and the petitioner was not provided any opportunity to lead evidence or to cross- examine the witnesses ald the same is not only arbitrary but also illegat and in violation of principles of natura_l justice. Further, though the ..: 4 PK, J W P.N?.266OB of 2022 enquiry officer ha.s held the charges-Il to IV as not proved, tl-re disciplinary authority disagreed with the hndings of the enquiry officer. Thus, as per Regulation 7 of the Regulations, 7976, tlre disciplinary au thority has to record its own re,lsons for such disagreement and record it s own hndings on the charge. However, in the case of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority has issued the dissent note on O1.O2.2022, rvittrout assigning any reasons. Ttrerefore, the entire disciplinary procecdings initiated against the petitioner and the manner in which the enquiry r,ras conducled and the dissent note was issued are not only contrary to the Regulations, 1976, but also illergal arbitrary and also in violation of principles of natural justice. It is further contended that though the enquiry officer has heid lew charges against the petitioner as not proved and only held one charge as proved, the disciplinary authority imposed a majo r penalty of compulsory retirernent from service. As such, the punishmerrt imposed on the petitioner is h;.ghly disproportionate to the proven charge Therefore, it is prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 18.05.2022.

6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the respondents submitted that 1.he petitioner had committed serious irregularities while functioning as the Assistant Bra_nch Head during the period from 22.06.2017 to 18.o3.2o2o and also as the Joint Sanctioning Authority during the period from IT.OI.2Olg to 37.12.2019, involving loss of large Y 5 PK, J W.P.No.26608 of 2022 sums of money, due to which, the disciplinary authority decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, and issued a show-cause notice dated lB.O4.2O2O. Further, since the petitioner's reply to the show- cause notice, dated 16.07.2O2O, was found unsatisfactory by the disciplinary authority, a Charge Sheet dated O5.O2.2O21, along with its two corrigenda dated O9.O2.2O21 and 15.O2.2021, was issued to the petitioner for submission of his written statement of defense. In response, the petitioner submitted his reply on 12.O2.2O2i, which was also found unsatisfactory. Therefore, an enquiry was ordered by the disciptinary authority vide proceedings dated 18.02.2021, and after conducting a detailed enquiry, the enquiry oflicer submitted his report on 1O.O12O22. Thereafter, on perusal of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority did not concur with the findings of the enquiry ofhcer. Hence, the dissent note dated 01.O2.2022 was issued on the hndings of the enquiry ofhcer and explanation was called for from the petitioner. In response, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 25.O2.2022. Subsequently, the disciplinary authority, with an independent and unbiased mind, considering the entirety of the case, and in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by the Regulations, 1976, authority has imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement from service on the petitioner in accordance with law. 6 PK, J w. P.No.26608 of 2022

7. it is furth.r suLrmitted that Regulati on z (2) of th. Regulations, 1976, empowers the dlsciprinary authority to overrure the .indings of the enquiry officer b}' recording proper justihcation for such rli*agreement on the enquiry report. Hence, for each and every allegation arLd the charge, where the discipl;.nary authority differed from the findings of the enquiry, recorded its own hndings in the dissent note dated ol.o2.2i.)22. Further, the peti[ioner r,l as also provided ample opportunity to deri:nd his case. Therefore, the respondcnts are justihed in imposing on the petitioner the punishment of cr:mpulsory retirement from service for th e rapses and irregularities comrlitted by him. Hence, there are no grounc s to entertain the present writ petition and the therefore, it is prayed t. dismiss the

8. This court has taken note of the riva-l submissions made bv learned counsel for the rr:spective parties.

9. A perusal rf the record discloses that while the petitioner was working as Assistrlnt Branch Head at Guntur Branch of the respondent Barrk, a charge stLeel dated 06.02.202r was issued against tJ-re petitioner, framing four charges with detailed eighty six imputations of misconduct. Thereafter, tu.o c,trrigenda to the said charge sheet wer,: issued on 09.O2.2024 and 1ti.O2.2O21. According to the petitioner, the said Charge Sheet does not contain the list of documents and list of witnesses, which is I 7 PK, J W.P.No.26606 of 2022 a mandatory requirement as per Regulation 6 (3) of the UCO Bank Oflicer Employees' (Disciptine and Appeal) Regulations, 1926. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to Rule 6 (3) of the Regulation s, 1976, which is extracted hereunder. o Procedure for imposing Major penalties: (3) .Wh9* it is proposed to hold an inquiry , rhe Disciplinary Authority sha_ll frame defrnite arrd distincf charges on the basis of the allegations against t1e ofhcer employe" i.rd th. article of charge , together with a statement of ihe allegations, list of documents relied on along with copy of such docu"ments and list of witnesses along with copy of Statiment of w.itnesses, if any, on w-hich they are based, shail be communicated in writing to the officer employee , who shall be required to submit within such time as may be specified by the Disciplinary Authority ( not exceeding 15 days ) , or within such exlended time as may be granted by the said Authority, a written statement of his/her defence."

10. The above rule mandates that the charges should be definite, and that the charge Sheet must contain the list of witnesses a,d list of documents. However, in the present case, the Charge Sheet dated O5.O2.2O21 does not contain these mandatory elements. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the charge Sheet dated os.o2.2o2r itserf is defective, issued in gross violation of the Regulations, 1976, and such defect signihcantly deprives the petitioner of an opportunity to effectivelv defend himself against the charges. '/ PK, ,] W.t No.266O8 oJ 2022 1 1. Furthermort:, the petitioner categorically asserted tha I he was not afforded an oppor-unity [o cross-examine the witnesses during the coursc of the departmental enquiry. The counter affidavit hled by thr:: respondents is silent and lails to address this contention of the petitioner. Hence, it can be construed that there are procedural lapses on thr.: part of the respondents in conducting the departmental proceedirrgs, thereby, undermining the petitioner's right of fair enquiry proceedings.

12. The recorcl further revea-ls that after conducting an enquiry, the enquiry officer sul:mitted his enquiry report, holding chargr:-I as proved; charges-Il and IV as not proved; and cha-rge-Ill as partly proved. On receipt of the said report, the disciplinary authority issued a dissent note daLed, Ol.O2.2O2i2, disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer. In this context, it is relevant to refer to Rule 7 (21 of the Regulations, 1976, which reads as unCer. Action on the Enquiry Report: (2) The Disc:iplinary Authority shall, if it is disagreed wi th the findings of the inquiring authority on any article of charge, r'ecord its reasons for such disagreement and record its own frndings on such chargr:, if the evidence on record is sufhcient for the purpose."

13. The above Rule mandates that u,hen the disciplinzrry authority disagrees with th e hndings of the enquiry ofhcer, it mu st provide detailed reasons for such disagreement. In the instant case, the disciplinary 9 PK, J W.P.No.26608 oI2O22 authority issued a dissent note dated 01.02.2022, disagreeing with the hndings of the enquiry ofhcer, however, failed to record specific reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings unilaterally, thereby, rendering the dissent note procedurally defective. However, basing on the said report dated O1.O2.2O22, the petitioner was imposed with a major penalty of compulsory retirement from service vide impugned order dated t4.o5.2022. \

74. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the defects in the Charge Sheet, denia.l of opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses and the absence of reasons in the dissent note for disagreement with the hndings of the enquiry ofhcer, highlights the considerable procedural irregularities in the conduct of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, violating the Regulation s, 1976, as well as lhe principles of natural justice.

15. In that view of the matter, this CourL deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned punishment order dated 1a.O5.2O22 issued by respondent No.2.

16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 14.05.2022 issued by respondent No.2, and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service. However, the petitioner 0 I r' 10 PK, J W.P No.266O8 oJ 2022 is not entitled fcr any back wages in view of the ,no v,ork, no pay, principles. It is ,eedless to state that this order does not preclude the authorities from taking any action against the petitioner, if ttrey so desire, strictly in accordatrce with [aw. Miscellaneo,s applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stald closed. No c:osts SD/.T. TIRUMALA DEVI REGISTRAR ASSI //TRUE COPYII ION OFFICER Ilp 4qnqt Managel UCo Bank, 8-2-624, Ground floor, Road No.10 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, TS -34. The.G_eneral Manager and Disciplinary Authority, UCO Bank, Bth Floor, UCO Bank Building No.10, BTM Sarani, Kolkata 700001. The Man-ag-ing O1q"lqt UCO Bank, 8th Ftoor, UCO Bank Building No.10, BTM Sarani, Kolkata'/0000'1 One CC to SRI f,. RAVI KIRAN StNGH, Advocate tOpUCI One CC to Ms. lr/ SHAL|NI, Advocate IOpUC] Two CD Copies BN BS To,

2. J. 4 5 6 g HIGH COURT DATE D: 1 0 101 12025 ORDER WP.No.26608 of 2022 ; ( q J Bt. STAI G 1 3 0 Jlir ?025 I t OE s nATcP' zO ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @4' I(O 3o\t rd