HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4229 of 2010 Dated: -03-2010 Between: K.Kanneganti Prabhakar Rao. … Petitioner And Union Bank of India, Nariman Point, Mumbai, rep. by its Managing Director & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4229 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner herein, who is an Assistant Manager in the Union Bank of India, seeks for a Writ of Certiorary, calling for the records pertaining to the Memorandum of Articles of Charge and Statement of Allegations bearing No.FGMO:CMHR:355, dated 16.12.2009, and quash the same by declaring as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner is an employee of the 1st respondent- Bank, and is working as Assistant Manager in Bheemavaram branch, in West Godavari District. On 12th of December 2008, the 2nd respondent herein has issued a Memo to the petitioner, alleging certain acts of omission and commission on his part, during his tenure as a Branch Manager at Pulla branch. The petitioner has submitted his explanation, dated 6th January 2009, to the aforesaid Memo. Dissatisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, and a Charge Memo was issued by framing 4 charges, which read as under : “1. Failure to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the bank. 2. Failure to discharge his duties with utmost devotion and diligence. 3. Failure to discharge his duties with utmost honesty and integrity. 4. Failure to perform his official duties or any exercise of powers conferred on him; act otherwise in his best judgment”. 3. In the same charge memo, it is stated that a detailed state of allegations to the Articles of Charge was annexed to it. In the enclosed statement of allegations, details of the acts of omission and commission alleged to have been committed by the petitioner during his tenure as a Branch Manager at Pulla branch, were given elaborately. 4. In the writ petition, the impugned Charge Memo and the steps taken by respondents to conduct disciplinary inquiry, are questioned by the petitioner, on the ground that though he wanted to appoint a retired officer of the bank as a defence assistant, but, he is not being permitted by the respondents. Further, it is alleged that the charges framed against the petitioner are vague, as such, the procedure adopted by the respondents to conduct disciplinary inquiry, is not in accordance with the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, framed by the bank. 5. A detailed counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. While denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated in the counter affidavit that the disciplinary inquiry, which is being conducted against the petitioner, is initiated under the Union Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. It is stated that as per the said Regulations, petitioner is entitled to take the assistance of any other officer, which means, an officer, who is continuing in the service of the Bank, and none else. It is submitted that in view of the said Rule, it is not permissible for the petitioner to engage a retired officer of the bank, to defend his case. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that before issuance of the Memorandum of Charges, a Memo, dated 12th December 2008, was issued to the petitioner to explain as to why suitable disciplinary action should not be initiated in the very specific context of serious violation on his part in respect of several accounts being permitted to be opened and the loans being disbursed even when the new Branch Manager had already reported and taken over the charge, and thus, the petitioner had indulged in great adventurism in addition to exposing the bank to serious financial risks. To the said Memo, the petitioner has already replied vide his letter, dated 16th January 2009 in detail, and the same clearly shows that he has understood the charges and responded to the same. It is further submitted that in view of the statement of allegations, where the charges framed against the petitioner were elaborated, it cannot be said that the said charges are vague. 6. Heard Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri C.R.Sridharan, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-bank. 7. At the outset, it is submitted by Sri C.Raghu, learned counsel for petitioner, that after seeing the Regulation, which permits only an officer employee can be appointed as a defence assistant, he is not pressing for the ground raised in the writ petition that he is not being permitted to appoint a retired officer as defence assistant. In any event, as per the Union Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, an officer employee can alone be a defence assistant in disciplinary proceedings and the term ‘officer employee’ is also defined under Section 2(i) of the Regulations, framed under Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. As per the said definition, the ‘Officer Employee’ means, a person, who holds a supervisory, administrative or managerial post in the Bank or any other person who has been appointed and is functioning as an Officer of the Bank. In view of the said definition, the petitioner cannot seek permission to appoint a retired officer to be his defence assistant. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that as per Regulation 6 of the Union Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, it is obligatory on the part of the disciplinary authority, to frame definite and distinct charges on the basis of the allegations against the officer employee. But, in this case, a reading of the Charge Memo shows that no definite charges are framed against the petitioner, and the charges framed are vague. It is submitted that in the absence of framing any definite charges, it is not open for the respondents to proceed with the inquiry, based on the charge memo impugned in this writ petition. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of Supreme Court in the case of Surath Chandra Chakravarty Vs. The State of West Bengal[1], and in the case of Union of India Vs. Gyan Chand Chattar[2]. 8. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri C.R.Sridharan, learned counsel for respondents that on the acts of omission and commission committed by the petitioner, a preliminary inquiry was conducted, and a Memo was issued to the petitioner, for which, he has already responded, by filing his explanation. It is submitted that dissatisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the respondents have initiated regular disciplinary proceedings, and a charge memo was issued to him. It is submitted that if the charge memo alongwith the statement of allegations is read together, it cannot be said that the charges are either vague or not definite. It is submitted that, in any event, on the aforesaid ground, the petitioner cannot challenge the impugned charge memo, at this point of time. In support of his argument, the learned counsel has relied on the judgments of Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. S.Sree Rama Rao[3], and in the case of Disciplinary Authority- cum-Regional Manager Vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik[4]. 9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the only question, which fall for consideration is, whether the charges framed against the petitioner in the charge memo, dated 16th December 2009, and the procedure adopted to conduct disciplinary inquiry, are in accordance with the Union Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, or not. Though four charges are framed in the Memorandum of Articles of Charge issued on 16th of December 2009, but in the very same Memo, it is stated that a detailed statement of allegations is annexed thereto. The statement of allegations clearly elaborates the acts of omission and commission, alleged to have been committed by the petitioner during his tenure as a Branch Manager of Pulla branch. 10. In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner in the case of Surath Chandra Chakravarty (1 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken the view that the grounds on which it is proposed to take action, are to be reduced into the form of a definite charge or charges, which have to be communicated to the person charged, together with a statement of the allegations, on which, each charge is based, and any other circumstances, which it is proposed to be taken into consideration in passing orders, has also to be stated. In the same judgment, it is held hat this Rule embodies a principle, which is one of the basic contents of a reasonable and adequate opportunity for defending the charge by the charged officer. 11. In the judgment in the case of Union of India (2 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where the charge sheet is accompanied with the statement of facts, and the allegation may not be specific in charge sheet but may be crystal clear from the statement of charges, in such a situation, as both constitute the same document, it may not be held that as the charge was not specific, definite and clear, the enquiry stood vitiated. In the same judgment, it is held that where a delinquent is served a charge sheet without giving specific and definite charge and no statement of allegation is served along with the charge sheet, the enquiry stands vitiated as having been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. 12. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh (3 supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for respondents, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the charge and the statement of facts form part of a single document. Further, in the case of Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager (4 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in Service Law, acting beyond one’s authority, amounts to misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 24 of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations. 13. Even coming to the facts of the case on hand, there is a provision for framing a definite charge against the petitioner. Though a bare reading of the charges alone does not appear to be specific and definite on the acts of omission and commission committed by the petitioner, but the Memorandum of Charge itself indicates that a detailed statement of allegations to the Articles of charge is given as annexure. In the statement of allegations, number of omissions and commissions committed by the petitioner, are given in detail. In view of the judgment referred above (3 supra), the Memorandum of charge and the statement of allegations where the omissions and commissions on the part of petitioner were detailed, have to be construed as a single document. Applying the ratio of the judgments referred above, it cannot be said that there are no definite allegations against the petitioner so as to interdict the disciplinary proceedings, and declare the Memorandum of Charges framed against the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary, in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the detailed allegations of commissions and omissions on the part of the petitioner as detailed in the statement of allegations, this Court is of the opinion that sufficient opportunity is provided to the petitioner to answer the charges. In any event, the petitioner also responded to the Charge memo by filing his explanation, and only at a later point of time, approached this Court by merely stating in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, that the charge memo is vague. In the absence of any prejudice caused to the petitioner on account of the steps taken by the respondents in issuing the charge memo alongwith the annexure of statement of allegations, I do not find any infirmity in the charge memo issued to the petitioner, warranting interference of this Court at this stage. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit, and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J March 2010 ajr [1] AIR 1971 SC 752 [2] 2009-TLPRE-0-771 [3] AIR 1963 SC 1723 [4] (1996) 9 SCC 69