Madhu Panabaka v. Union Bank of lndia

Heard Sri J, Sudheer, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Dr'K. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned Standing Counsel for Union Bank of India, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5.

2. The Detitioner filed the writ petition see kino the followinq relief : "... to issue of writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, by declaring the action of the Respondents in dismissing the appeal vlde Order No. AGM.AA:188:2022 dated 18-1L-2022 and confirming the order No. FGMO/HYD /HR/126/2022 Dated 30'8-2022 as illegal, arbitrary and u n constitutio na I for violating Articles 14, 16, 19(1)(g),2t of the Constitution of India and Union Bank of India Officer Employees' (conduct) Regulations, 1976 and Union Bank of India Officer Employees (discipline and appeal) Regulations, 1976 by setting them aside and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner back into service with his original post on the date of his suspension dated 03.O2.2022 i.e., Manager (Scale-II) with all the consequential benefits and payments that the petitioner is entitled to receive along with back wages and benefits from the date oF suspension dated 03.02.2o22 i.e., Manager (Scale-II) with all the consequential benefits ') S\, J \\ I' t{1| I t0tl and payments that the petitioner is entiUed to along with back wages and benefits from the suspension dated 03.02.2022 and to pass...,,. receive date of Mrs.Ujwala Teki pF

07.09.2021 to the that the Chairman,

3. The case of the petitioner in brief, is SHRC, RO, Secunderabad issued letter dated petitioner against the complaint made by one No.11173 on charges of sexual harassment. On 08.11.2021 rhe respondent No.5 issued two letters with strict warning to the petitioner and the complainant to refrain from contact with each other. The 4th respondent issued letter dated 70.72.202r aileging that on og.rr.2o2r when the petitioner went to RO, Secunderabad, the petitoner caused nuisance in the bank premises, resorted to indecent behavior by using maintaining unparliamentary Regional Head and Union Bank of India language and also threatened lvlrs. Dy Regional Head leading to violation of the Officer employees (Conduct) Regulations, Indrani, 7976 and the petitioner had given reply dated t0.t2.2027. It is Further the case of the petitioner that 4th respondent issued articles of charge dated 19.1.2022 without considering the reply of the petitioner and the respondents had not followed the procedure established by law. It is further the case of the -) SN. J \\,P .l-18 t.1 2022 petitioner that petitioner vide his letter dated 03.02.2022 suspended the petitioner from the services of the Bank with immediate effect stating that certain serious lapses/irregularities have been reported on his part and the 4th respondent also issued letter dated 19.02.2022 alleging that the acts of the petitioner constituted violataon of Union Bank of India Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. The 4rh respondent also issued Articles of charge dated 31.03.2022 against the petitioner and also issued another letter dated O7 .04.2022 without affording any reason whatsoever and held that the defence statements made by the petitioner are not convincing. The 4th respondent issued order dated 30'08'2022 imposing major penalty against the petitioner and the entire period of suspension imposed on the petitioner had been treated as not on duty. The petitioner further submits that the petitioner preferred appeal against the order dated 30.08.2022 and the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner vide its order dated 78.17.2022, without considering the reply dated

27.01.2022 for articles oF charge dated 19.1.2022 and reply dated 04.04.2022 to the articles of charge dated 31.03.2022' 4 S\. J \\ t, .t.t3ll l0tl Aggrieved thereby the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE REC D u n r dat ,LL.2 22i ued 4th resoondent is extr cted hereund er: From : HR Department FGMO Hyderabad To: Shri Panabaka Mad hu Emp. No.644115 Manager ( u/s) Zonal Audit Office, Hyderabad Residential Add ress: Flat No.401 NS Sreenivasam Raghvendra Naga r Naccharam - 500 076 FGMO/HYD/HR/ 726/2022 Date: 30.08.2022 This has reference to the departmental inquiry conducted by Shri Kishore, Chief Manager, Inquiry Ce , FGr"lO, Hyderabad (IA) against Shri Panabaka Madhu, Manager (under suspension) (CSO) into the ch a rges/a llegations leveled against him rn terms of Article of Charge No.s FGMO/HYD/HR IO/2022 dated 79.O7.2022 and FGMO/HYD/HR/52/2022 dared 3r.03.2022 issued to him for his various acts of indiscipline and mlsbehavior during his visit to Regional Office, Secunderabad. The Inquiring Authority. Shri Kishore, Chief Manager, Inquiry Cell, FGMO, Hyderabad has submitted his findings aatea 0b.06.2022 against which the CSO has made his submislions. In my capacity as Disciplinary Authority, I have carefully gone through the aforesaid Articles of 'Charge bearing flo.s FGMO/HYD/HRIO/2O22 dated tg.Ot.2o22 and FGMO/HYD/HR/52/2022 dated 31.O3.2022 issued ro Shri Panabaka Madhu, proceedings of the departmental inquiry, documents taken on record of inquiry as exhibits, written brief dated 16.05.2O22 of the presenting Officer (pO), Enquiry ) sN. l wP {l8lJ 2022 Officer's findings dated 08.06.2022, CSO's submissions on enquiry findings and other relevant papers in the matter. The gist of allegations held as proved against Cso/facts of the case, as brought out in the inquiry records, are as under: On 09.11.2021, Shri Panabaka Madhu entered the premises of RO Secunderabad and immediately after the conclusion of Corporate Prayer, in front of all the staff members started shouting abusively at Mrs Indrani, Chief Manager, RO Secunderabad (Head of the Sexual Harassment Redressal Committee) threatening that he will lodged a Police complaint against her. Though he was requested by Mrs. Indrani not to shout in office premises, Shri Panabaka l'4adhu did not adhere to the same. Mrs. Indrani politely requested him to make his submission if he has any grievance, in writing, but without maintaining any decency or official decorum, he continued to create nuisance by hurling verbal abuses against her' As the abuses and nuisance reached intolerable stage, Mrs Indrani took Shri Panabaka Madhu to Shri Chandrasekhar Rao, Deputy Regional Head, as the Regional Head was chairing a CRLD Review meeting of identified Branch Heads of the Region on that day. Without any respect to the superior official, he has hurled verbal abuses coupled with un parliamentary language at the Deputy Regional Head which was witnessed by all the staff members of RO Secunderabad. Unable to bear his indecent behavior, some staff of RO Secunderabad came to the rescue of without any respite. Shri Panabaka Madhu entered the meeting the Deputy Regional Head. Hall (where the Regional Head was addressing the identified Branch Heads) and started shouting at Regional Head in a totally impolite manner. Dismayed by his behavior, some Branch Heads who were in the meeting, asked him to leave the premises. Further, on 04.02.2022, Shri Panabaka Ivladhu entered the premises of RO Secunderabad along with his wife and sat before Mrs Indrani, Chief lulanager, RO Secunderabad (Head of the Sexual Harassment Redressal Commlttee) and when inquired about the reason for their visit, Shri Panabaka Madhu said he wanted to discuss further about the SHRC case to which Mrs Indrani informed him that the case has already been closed. When asked for appointment of Regional Head, Shri Panabaka Madhu was informed that Regional Head was in a meeting and he can take prior appointment and then meet him. Not satisfied by the reply, Shri Panabaka Madhu along with his wife went and sat in the lobby and called the Police. Within 15 minutes, two 6 -0" - S\. J \\ I' lll3 t.t l0ll Police officials came to RO Secunderabad, met Regional Head and informed that there is a comptiini OV'Sf.)., o_""Oaka tvladhu against Ro Secunderabad officjals tnuitf,rLv .."'#t ailowing him to enter RO premises. The police *".u in-tirut""d tnat he is not :l _!f"i.. rolls and appointment to nH .un wirh prior permission duly mentioning the reasons for. tn" .Irn". This was conveyed to Shri panabakj Madnu ano nii wire in"th" pr"."n." of Potice. Despite te,ino him time ana agaln;;;'i;" has..been ctosed long iack by tn" c"ilritl"l) sr,ri punuout u lidl, continuousty [ept on harping on tfre-issrle"ror reopening the case. He has created nuisance i" n"li""_ilirice by calting .potice officiats, which has ;"r;i6-.; i"";efamins rhe reputation of the Bank. Further, Snri p*ui"utu" Madhu sent messages on WhatsaoD to. s-ome staff members siating that the ' chi"f. Munug"r, Regionat Head uno of Ro Secunderabad, have demanded mon-ies' f.or", f,im'ior closure of the SHRC complaint against him. The altegations levelled against Shri panabaka Madhu Ir^y:_-l.:, sufficientty proved during the course of the rnquiry. r concur *,,n al:,y,_u*: of tne"rnquilirg autnority and agree with the foflowing charges tretj us'pioreo, -liJ."n, =HRC M7." - to ensure and and to acts :lillyl: Ig ta.ke arr possibte steps protect the interest of the Bank unbecoming of an officer employee -Failure to maintain good conduct and discipline and failure to show courtesy and attention to all persons in all transactions and n.goGiionr. Taking into account the nature and gravity of the charges/allegations oroved against siil' panaoat<a Madhu, and atso considerins th"-;;l;;r;inslmitigating circumstances of the penatty of "computsory Retirem-ent r.orn ,e.ri."s;i ft Bank,,, as fl-[lsutaqgl 1 (h) or ttre union i;rri;; i,,o," orr,... Employees (Discipline & Appeat) n"g;,utio"; if imposed ll.Ii. wqurd be just ant'p;;";-il';;;;-ine ends of Justice. iiis opi;;;il;';".jor ""se, Accordingly. in exercise of the powers conferr the Union Bank of India Officer Erpi;;";. Appeat) Regutations, 1976 I hereby p"iJtnl r"ir ed on me under ( Discipline and owing order: ORDER -a- 7 SN. J \.\ P l{tt Il 2022 / ,Major penalty of "Compulsory Retirement from services of the Bank" as per Regulation 4(h) of the Union Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 be and is hereby imposed on Shri pana'baka Madhu. Further, the entire period of suspension imposed on Shri Panabaka Madhu vide letter FGMO: HyDiO:2022 dated 03.02.2022, shall be treated as not on duty and he shalt not be entitled to any salary/allowances except the subsistence allowance a lready pa id. Shri Panabaka Madhu, may prefer appeal against the order with Assistant General Manager, ERD, Centrai Office Mumbai as specified in the Union Bank of India Officer employees (,Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, if he so desires, within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order. sd/- DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY CHIEF MANAGER CC Assistant General Manager, Zonal Audit Office, Hyderabad with an advice to serve the order on Shri panabaka It4adhu under acknowledgment, relieve the employee immediately, mark as 'Compulsorily Retired, against his name in the attendance Register and report compliance. CC ER Division, Central Office Ack,nowledgement copy to be returned to HR Department, FGMO Hyderabad.

5.7 r e lf of the Deti tioner mainlv cha llenqes that the rmDu qned o der !n n a .08.2 2 e r r eret n e r-I 8 a r s t s\..1 \\ t, t.llt Il t0ll e iti nn eds e for on h rou d alon reas n an co te t e t! we a r

6. The ou s I r ond nts fa ir f a th o err n dd te o.o 2 22 a edb r nd thi he 4th res n en snota s tn s tha e e on en s eak n ex rc! u cial fu cti n s ou d order /re soned ord f.

7. A bare perusal of the record and also the rmpugned order dated 30.08.2022 of the 4rh respondent i.e., the disciplinary Authority (referred to and extracted above) clearly indicates that the said order is passed in a routine mechanical manner wiihout assigning any reasons and major penalty of compulsory retirement from the services of the bank had been imposed on the petitioner and the same had been held as proper and had been conFirmed vide the impugned proceedings of the respondent No.3 dated 18.71.2022, mechanically in a routine casual manner not deciding the subject issue on its own merits independenUy. --l 9 ,u,, ,r o tot j order impugned of the respondent No.3 dated

8. A bare perusa! of the Appellate Authority i.e., la.tL.2022 indicates that the 3'd respondent instead of examining the appeal on its own merits rejected the same on the ground that the petitioner had not brought on record any new material in petitioners appeal warranting reconsideration of the penalty imposed on the petitioner by the disciplinary Authority i.e., respondent No.4. This Court opines that reason is the genesis of any order and without affording any reason whatsoever the whole order is vitiated and is liable to be set aside at the very outset. 9 m s e x o f record inq of reasons. a. Th Aoex Court in th iudo ment Dorte !n 2001 sc 664 i Tan Br e s te of Benqal Others at para 34 observed as under: "Governmental action must be based on utmost good faith, belief and ought to be supported with reason on the basis of the State of Law - if the action is otherwise or runs counter to the same the action cannot be ascribed to be malafide and it would be a plain exercise of judicial power to countenance such action and set the same aside for the purpose of equity, good conscience and justice. lustice of the situation demands action IO s\. I \\'P l]lt t.l ]012 clothed with bonafide reason and necessities of the situation in accordance with the law.,, b. The Apex Court in the iud ment reported rn (20Lo)9 scc 496 in Kra nti Associates Private Li m ited & An ther v Masood Ahmed Khan &ot ers at para 47 observed as under : Para 47 : Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and guasi_judicial or even ad ministrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding ext ra ne o u s co nsid e ra ti o n s. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judiciat, quasi_judicial and even by a d m i n istrati ve bod i es. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judiciat review by superior cou tts. -- SN. J wt' .H8 t+ 2012 (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifebtood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectivety considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accou ntability and trans?arencY, (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossibte to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism' (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers, Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subiect to broader scrutiny. (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of strasburge jurisprudence, (o) In alt common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future' Therefore, for I S\. J \\'t, {18tJ 20tl development of law, requirement of giving reasons, for the decision is of the essence and is virtualty a part of ,,due process,,. c. Former Chief Justice of India, Late Justice y.V. Chandrachud in judgment reported in (1978) 1 SCC 248 in Menaka Gandhi Vs. Union of India held that law cannot permit any exercise of power by an executive to keep the reasons undisclosed if the only motive for doing so is to keep the reasons away from judicial scrutiny. d. The Apex Court in case of eel Au ori India Limited Vs. a les Tax Of cer. Ro rke la-f Circle, AIR 2009 UDD !ement c5 61 observed as under : "Reason is the heart beat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same it becomes lifeless" e. nd rM ch er D dt Li Crabt ree reoorted in (19 74) observed IC R 120 ( NI c) v it was "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are tive links between the mind of the decision_ taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the ..Inscrutabte face of the sphinx,, it can, by its silence, r l SN, J wP 448 t4 2022 Courts to erformtheir Ap ellate functi on or exerc ise the d t decisio n. " th va f f. The Apex Court in iudoment reported in (2O1O) Vict ria Me orl IH II r s c7 2a Se retar and ura ta rik Na rik a Vs. owrah th rs at para 41 observed as under :

41. "Reason is the heart beat of every conclusion' it introduces clarity in an order and without the same' it becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subiectivity by objectivity. Absence of reasons renders the order unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum"'

10. Takin int consid ration: (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, (b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Union Bank of India' appearing on behalf of the respondents, (c) The contents of the impugned proceedings dated 18.11.2022 passed by the 3'd respondent herein (referred to and extracted above)' l4 rvp +rsr,r llui (d) The observations of the Apex Court in the Judgments referred to and extracted above, The writ petition is allowed. The fact as borne on record that the order impugned dated 30.09.2022 passed by the 4th respondent a.e., the disciplinary authority imposing the major penalty of compulsory retirement from the services of the Bank on the petitioner and the consequential order of the Appellate Authority i.e., 3.d respondent dated 18.11,2022 being bereft of reasons are accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded to the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent is directed to reconsider the subject issue afresh again, in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of natura! justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. However, there sha be no order as to costs. It is open to the petitioner to put forth all the tegal pleas and any further submissions pertaining to the subject issue before the 4th respondent. -- t l SN. J wP 4-l8 t-l 2022 The miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed SD/-K. SREE RAMA MURTHY UTY REGISTRAR D //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To SA BS

1. The Nlanaging Director and Chief Executrve Officer, U nron Bank of lnd ia, Central Office, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 4O0 O21 . 2. The General Manager, Unron Bank of lndia, Human Resources Department, Employee Relations Division, Central Oflice,239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400 021 .

3. The Assistant General Manager/Disciplinary Authority, Union Bank of lndia, Central Office, 239, Vidhan Bhavan[/arg, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400 021.

4. The Field General Manager. The HR Department, Field General lt/anager Office, Union Bank of lndia, 5-9-11, Pattavr Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad- 50004 5 The Regional Head, Regional Office. First Floor, Bungalow No. '109, New No.1-7-252 to 254, Oxford Street, SD Road, Secunderabad-500O03, T.S. 6 One CC to SRI J SUDHEER, Advocate IOPUC] 7 One CC to DR K LAKSHN/I NARASIIVHA, LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL 8 Two CD Copies W FOR UNION BANK OF lNDIA, Advocate [OPUC] ) )I ls JUL 2m (\ .\. C)! n^.(l HIGH COURT DATED:2410412025 ORDER WP.No.44814 ot 2022 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. O^l .,- -)6*