HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.5400 of 2010 Date: April 8, 2010 Between: A.N. Ravi Kumar, S/o. late A.V.S. Suryanarayana, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Manager (U/S), R/o.Flat No.F503, Jeevan Visakha Apartments, Near MMTC Colony, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam … Petitioner And Union Bank of India, Central Office, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Mumbai – 400 021, Represented by its Chairman & MD, and another … Respondents Order: In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question memo dated 10-08-2009, issued in REF:RO:VSK:HRMD:6067/09, memo dated 10-08-2009, issued in REF:RO:VSK:HRMD:6274 and also memo dated 06-10-2009, issued in REF:RO:VSK:HRMD:6619/09. 2. The petitioner is an employee of Union Bank of India. He was posted as Branch Manager of Bobbili branch. While he was functioning as Branch Manager, Bobbili, alleging some misconduct against him, he was placed under suspension, by order dated 06-10-2009, issued in REF:RO:VSK:HRMD:6619/09. In the order dated 06-10-2009, the petitioner was called on to explain as to why appropriate disciplinary action should not be initiated against him for the lapses alleged on his part. Prior to the said order, another communication was issued by the Assistant General Manager, informing that the services of the petitioner stand transferred to Chintapalli Branch as an Accountant. 3. The impugned memos are mainly questioned on the ground that Assistant General Manager is not competent to place the petitioner under suspension and post him to Chintapalli branch as an Accountant, which amounts to reduction in post. 4. A detailed counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents denying various allegations made by the petitioner. 5. It is contended by Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner, that as per Union Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, Chief Manager (IR) (SMGS-IV) and the authorities above him alone are the competent authorities; as such, no jurisdiction is vested in the Assistant General Manager to initiate proceedings against the petitioner or to place him under suspension. It is further contended that as per the aforesaid Regulations, reduction to lower post can be ordered as a measure of penalty, but in the instant case even before enquiry is conducted, order is passed posting the petitioner as an Accountant, which is a lower post, though he was working as a Manager. 6. On the other hand, it is contended by Sri C.R. Sridharan, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, that in view of amendments made to Union Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, Assistant General Manager is the competent authority, so far as the petitioner is concerned. It is further contended that the posts of Accountant and Manager are categorized in the very same category of Middle Management Grade II; as such, it cannot be said that the petitioner is reverted to a lower post. 7. With reference to the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, only two aspects arise for consideration in this writ petition. Firstly, whether Assistant General Manager is competent to initiate proceedings and place the petitioner under suspension. Secondly, whether posting the petitioner as an Accountant will amount to reverting him to a lower post. 8. In exercise of power conferred under Section 19 of Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, Union Bank of India has framed Regulations, in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India with previous sanction of the Central Government, which are titled as Union Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. For the purpose of initiating disciplinary proceedings and also for passing orders of suspension, under Regulation 12 of the Regulations, categories of posts and the competent authorities are notified. Though, initially, as per the schedule, for the officers in Junior Management and Middle Management Scale I and II, Chief Manager (IR) (SMGS IV) alone was the competent authority. But, certain amendments were made in the year 2002 and the same were communicated vide Circular Letter No.CO:IRD: 2797, dated 04-05- 2002. In the said circular, it is made clear that by virtue of the amendments made to Union Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976, so far as Middle Management Scale I and II are concerned, Assistant General Manager or authority above him at NRO/ZO/FGMO is competent to pass an order of suspension. In that view of the matter, in view of the said amendment to the schedule, which is communicated vide circular dated 04-05-2002, it is clear that Assistant General Manager is the competent authority to suspend an officer in the category of Middle Management Scale I and II. As such, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the second respondent herein has no jurisdiction to suspend the petitioner cannot be accepted. Further, though it is the case of the petitioner that posting him as an Accountant amounts to reduction in post, no material is placed before this court to show that the post of Accountant is a lower post to that of Branch Manager. In view of Union Bank of India (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979, posts are divided into several grades, terming them as ‘Senior Management Grade‘, ‘Middle Management Grade’ and ‘Junior Management Grade’. Merely because the petitioner is posted as an Accountant, in absence of categorization of posts, by showing the post of Accountant as lower post to that of Branch Manager, it cannot be said that the petitioner is reverted to a lower post. It is not out of place to mention that a Branch Manager working in rural areas or in small branches may not be posted as a Manager in the banks situated in urban areas or in large branches. In any event, as the petitioner is transferred in the same scale and in absence of any categorization of posts, so as to show that the post of Accountant is lower to that of Branch Manager, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is reverted to a lower post cannot also be accepted. There is no basis for the allegation of the petitioner that he is posted in a lower post to that of Manager. In that view of the matter, it is not necessary to conduct any enquiry. It appears that the said posting is ordered to avoid managerial functions in view of the allegations made against the petitioner. In absence of categorization of posts and in view of continuation of the petitioner in the same scale, posting the petitioner as an Accountant cannot be termed as reversion, as a measure of punishment in disciplinary proceedings, so as to conduct enquiry before passing such order. 9. For the foregoing reasons, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned memos. 10. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed, however, in the circumstances, with no order as to costs. _____________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) April 8, 2010 MRR