Orissa High Court
State Bank Of India Officer'S ... vs State Bank Of India Represented Through on 19 July, 2013
Author: A.K.Rath
Bench: M.M.Das, A.K.Rath
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.24252 of 2012
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.
-----------
State Bank of India Officer's Association
and another .... Petitioners
Versus
State Bank of India represented through
it's Chief General Manager and another .... Opposite parties
For Petitioners ... M/s.Ashok Mohanty
(Sr.Advocate)
V.Narasingh,
S.K.Senapati & S.Das
For Opp. Parties ... Mr.R.K.Rath
(Sr.Advocate)
Mr.P.V.Balakrishna
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE M.M.DAS
AND
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE DR. A.K.RATH
Date of hearing 03.7.2013 : Date of judgment: 19.07.2013
DR.A.K. RATH, J.Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed, inter alia, to quash the letter dated 27.9.2012 initiating departmental proceeding with articles of charge and statement of imputation of misconduct vide Annexure-4 series.
2
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, case of the petitioners is that petitioner no.1, State Bank of India Officers' Association, is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and affiliated to All India State Bank Officers' Federation, the Apex Body and petitioner no.2 is the elected General Secretary of the said Association. Petitioner no.1- Association through its apex body at different levels raised its objection for introduction of seven days week and has been consistently demanding a five day timing schedule keeping in tune with the policy as adopted by the Reserve Bank of India and NABARD. While the negotiations were taking place, the Chairman of the State Bank of India unilaterally announced in the press that the bank is going to adopt seven days week. This led to protest across all the State Bank all over the country and which was also led by the local Associations with the guidance of the Federation. The further case of the petitioners is that protesting against arbitrary action of the opposite parties in making a declaration in the press without taking the employees representatives into confidence, there was a lunch time demonstration on 28.8.2012 in front of the Local Head Office at Bhubaneswar. Keeping in view the interest of the customers, the protesters resumed the work soon after the lunch hour. While the matter stood thus, on 30.8.2012, the DGM & Circle Development Officer issued a letter to the General Secretary of the Association calling upon to desist from such behaviour and not to repeat it in future vide Annexure-1. On 22.9.2012, the bank issued another letter to the General Secretary stating therein that action in holding demonstrations within the bank's premises and shouting 3 slogans, apart from disturbing the peace, within the bank's premises and causing hindrance in bank's working also lowered the image of the bank in the eyes of the public, and such action tantamounts to violation of the provisions of Sec. 36-AD of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'B.R.Act' for the sake of brevity) and that the bank may be constrained to take appropriate action as required. The petitioners further assert that pursuant to Annexure-2, petitioner no. 1 gave reply on 27.9.2012 stating therein that demonstration, which was held during lunch hour on 28.8.2012, does not come within the ambit of Sec. 36 AD of B.R.Act. In the said letter, it was clearly stated that at the relevant point of time i.e. on 28.8.2012 petitioner no.2 was not the General Secretary of the Association.
3. The further case of the petitioners is that on 27.9.2012, a letter was issued by the Disciplinary Authority and Circle Development Officer, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bhubaneswar initiating proceeding against petitioner no.2 and enclosing therein the copy of articles of charge, statement of imputation of misconduct and list of witnesses in support of articles of charge vide Annexure-4 series.
4. The articles of charge against petitioner no.2 are quoted hereunder:-
"Shri Sambit Misra, Officer, MMGS-II while working in the Bank failed to discharge his duties with utmost devotion and diligence, failed to take all possible steps to protect the interest of the Bank and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Bank official. He has instigated other officers to commit 4 misconduct by not maintaining good conduct and discipline. He has violated Rules 50(4), 50(5) and 50(6) read with Rule 66 of State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules as detailed in the enclosed statement of imputation of misconduct".
5. Statement of imputation against petitioner no.2 is that when petitioner no.2 was working as Deputy Manager in the Reconciliation Department has allegedly committed the following irregularities:-
i) On 28.08.2012 he instigated officers of the Bank to hold demonstrations within the Bank's premises/compound at LHO, Bhubaneswar and also shouted slogans. He himself participated in these demonstrations and also shouted slogans. This behaviour on his part has disturbed the peace within the Bank's premises and there was hindrance in Bank's working and disturbance in the regular business activity of the Bank.
ii) Instead of protecting the Bank's interest and guiding the other officers of the Bank, he wrongfully instigated the other officers of the Bank to misbehave by shouting slogans and demonstrating with intention to disturb peace disrupt the Bank's operations and discouraged bank's officers from performing their lawful duties within ulterior motive to lower the image of the bank in the eyes of the customer and public at large.
iii) He has organised and designed the demonstration with deliberate intention to tarnish the image of the Bank which he is required to protect and enhance as an officer of the Bank.
6. Pursuant to the same, petitioner no.2 filed his statement of defence denying the assertion made in the articles of charge and statement of imputation of misconduct vide Annexure-4 series. In response to allegation no.1, petitioner no.2 submitted that the demonstration was held during lunch hour on 28.8.2012 as per the direction of the All India State Bank Officers' Federation. The members were requested to assemble for 5 the demonstration. He was not the General Secretary of the Association at the relevant point of time and that he had no role in organizing or designing it. It is further stated that all the registered Trade Unions in the country have right to demonstrate peacefully and this right flows from Article 19 (1) of the Constitution of India. It is further stated that he was in no way involved in any behaviour, which had disturbed the peace or hindered the banks' working or the regular business activity since the demonstration was held during lunch hour. So far as allegation no.2 is concerned, it is stated that petitioner no.2 have not called upon the members of the Association to hold lunch hour demonstration on 28.8.2012. He denied that making a demonstration does construe misconduct. So far as allegation no.3 is concerned, it is stated that during demonstration, the members were apprised on the issue and no provocative speech was made against any official of the bank.
7. Pursuant to issuance of notice, opposite parties entered appearance and filed a comprehensive counter affidavit. Case of the opposite parties is that the writ application in its present form is not maintainable since mere charge-sheet does not give any cause of action since it does not infringe the right of any one. It is further asserted that the writ application is premature. Further case of the opposite parties is that the banking scenario has been undergoing a sea change with imminent and imperative need to adapt the change of upgrading the delivery of products and services to ensure customers' satisfaction. The 6 advancements in technology were to be harnessed and in doing so the manner in which the officers perform their duties and responsibilities had to undergo a change. In order to implement the technology plan by introducing full computerization, the co-operation of the entire work force of the bank was necessary. To undergo a smooth transition, the bank has entered into various settlements/understandings with both the officers Association representing the officers and the staff union representing the employees. It is further stated that a Memorandum of Understanding was executed between the Bank and All India State Bank of India Officers' Federation on Technology and other issues on 23.7.2003. Clause 1 (1) of the Memorandum of Undertaking provides that branches/offices/service units may be placed, at the discretion of the bank, on round-the-clock working and seven days a week basis continuously depending upon its requirements. Furthermore, the Reserve Bank of India issued a Master Circular on Customer Service in banks through letter dated 2.7.2012. Parapgrah-7 of the said Circular provides that bank should normally function for public transactions at least for four hours on week days and two hours on Saturdays in the larger interest of public and trading community. Extension of counters, Satellite Officers, one man offices or other special class of branches may remain open for such shorter as may be considered necessary. Clause 7.3 of the said Circular deals with commencement/extension of working hours. It provides that commencement of employees' working hours 15 minutes before commencement of business hours could be made operative by banks at 7 branches in metropolitan and urban centres. The banks should implement the recommendation taking into account the provisions of the Local Shops and Establishments Act. The Branch Managers and other supervising officials should, however, ensure that the members of the staff are available at their respective counters/cubicles right from the commencement of banking hours and throughout the prescribed business hours so that there may not be any ground for customers to make complaints. The banks should ensure that no customer remains unattended during the business hours and uninterrupted service is rendered to the customers. Further the banks should allocate the work in such a way that no teller counter is closed during the banking hours at their branches.
8. It is the specific case of the opposite parties that the bank extended the business hours up to 6 hours on week days and 3 hours of Saturdays in pursuance of the Bi-partite Settlements/Understanding entered into with the Staff Federation and the Officers' Federation and that it is not correct to say that the demonstration was held during lunch time. It is further submitted that the Charter of Demands submitted by the All India Bank Officers' Confederation to the Chairman of Indian Banks' Association demanded certain improvements in the service conditions i.e., both monetary and non-monetary issues. One of the non-monetary issues pertains to 5 day working in a week.
8
9. While the matter stood thus, a Central Negotiating Council Meeting was held on 9th July, 2011 at Mumbai with the All India State Bank of India Officers' Federation. In the said Negotiation Council Meeting, the Deputy Managing Director and Corporate Development Officer in her opening remarks stated that the officers could strive for extending facility of 7 days banking to the customers though it may not be at all branches. In the said Negotiation Meeting, the President of Officers Federation expressed that seven day banking is debatable and that the bank should provide necessary infrastructure to the branches including Relief Staff to enable the Officers of such branches to get their weekly off etc. Further, in the Central Negotiating Council Meeting with the All India State Bank Officers' Federation held on 20.10.2011 at Patna, negotiation took place on certain issues and one of the issue pertained to 5 days week. The Deputy General Manager (IR) made it clear that the demand for 5 days week/two days off in a week is an industry level issue and the Federation is requested to take it up with the Indian Banks' Association.
10. While the negotiation was going on, the Chairman of the bank gave a statement to the Press that the bank is contemplating seven days banking in the branches of State Bank of India. The said statement was made in public interest with a view to enhance the business of State Bank of India and to keep the money flow throughout the week, which will help in building up customers' confidence and the National growth. Immediately, thereafter the Officers Federation addressed a letter to the 9 Deputy Managing Director and C.D.O., Mumbai, protesting the news items appearing in certain newspapers referring to the statement made by the Chairman to credit analysts as regards the desire of the bank to work 7 days in a week. The Association requested the Deputy Managing Director and C.D.O. vide letter dated 27.8.2012 to place the subject for Bi-partite discussions before initiating any move in this regard, but, without waiting for the response from the Management, the very next day i.e., on 28.8.2012., the General Secretary of the Association i.e., petitioner no.2 gave a protest call against the proposal of 7 days banking. According to the call given by the General Secretary, the demonstration was to be held during lunch hour i.e, at 2.35 p.m. in front of Local Head Office, Bangalore. The call was given to hold demonstration at other centres also. The specific case of opposite parties is that demonstrations were held within the bank premises/compound at the instigation of the petitioner no.2. The letter dated 30.8.2012 was addressed to petitioner no.2 referring to the demonstrations held on 28.8.2012 in the banks' premises/compound stating therein that the same was disturbing the peace within the bank premises. It is also stated in the said letter that action on the part of petitioner no.2 amounts to indiscipline and also resulted in lowering the bank's image in the eyes of public at large. Therefore, he was asked to desist from such behaviour in future. In continuation of the letter dated 30.8.2012, petitioner no.2 was informed that action of disturbing the peace in the premises of the bank on 28.08.2012 also violated the provisions of Sec. 36 AD of the B.R.Act and, 10 accordingly, the bank may be constrained to take appropriate action. Articles of charge and statement of imputations of misconduct were issued to petitioner no.2 stating therein that action disturbing the peace within the bank's premises and that there was hindrance in bank's working and disturbance in the regular activity of the bank, amounted to lowering the image of the bank. Further, petitioner no.2 instigated the officers of the bank to hold demonstrations within the bank premises/compound by shouting slogans and the said behaviour was a breach of the Service Rules. It is further stated that petitioner no.2 instigated the other officers to commit misconduct by not maintaining good conduct and discipline. Therefore, he has violated Rules 50(4) and 50(6) read with Rule 66 of State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'Service Rules' for the sake brevity).
11. In course of hearing, Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that being aggrieved by a press note issued by the Deputy Managing Director of the bank expressing the intention of the management to adopt 7 days week, when the matter is at the stage of negotiation between the management and Federation, a call for lunch time demonstration on 28.8.2012 at all local Head Offices was given by the apex body i.e. All India State Bank Officers Federation. Petitioner no.1- Association, which is affiliated to the Federation, in response to such call by the Federation, held demonstration in front of the local Head Office at Bhubaneswar on 28.8.2012. It was further submitted 11 that being rattled by such show of solidarity, the D.G.M.-cum-Circle Development Officer-cum-Disciplinary Authority, opposite party no.2, issued letter dated 30.8.2012, vide Annexure-1, to the General Secretary, State Bank of India Officers' Association calling upon to desist from such behaviour and warned not to repeat it in future. On 22.9.2012, vide Annexure-2, another letter was issued to the said General Secretary, State Bank of India Officers' Association referring to 36 AD of the B.R.Act. On 27.9.2012, petitioner no.2, who had by then taken over charge as the General Secretary on being elected, submitted his reply stating therein that as he was not the General Secretary on the relevant date, it was not possible on his part to state as to why a reply was not submitted to Annexure-2. He further submitted that Sec. 36-AD of the B.R.Act is not at all attracted in the case at hand. He further submitted that on 27.9.2012 invoking the power under Rule 68 (1) of the Service Rules, a decision was communicated to him to institute disciplinary proceeding against petitioner no.2 and articles of charge, inter alia, was alleged for violation of Rule 50(4), Rule-50(5) and Rule-50(6) read with Rule-66 of the Service Rules, whereafter the petitioner no.2 had submitted his defence controverting the allegations made by the bank. But then without considering the matter in its proper perspective, by order dated 30.11.2012, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. He further submitted that imputation of charges are ex facie vague and do not constitute any misconduct. Except petitioner no.2, at all India level no other officer, who was not holding the post of General Secretary on 28.8.2012, had been proceeded against for the demonstration 12 on the said date and there is no violation of constitutional right to express dissent. He further submitted that in the counter affidavit, the word 'Federation' and 'Association' had been used to mislead the Court and that Federation is a apex body and the State Level Trade Union like petitioner no.1 is known as Association. He assailed the very initiation of the disciplinary proceeding on the ground, inter alia, that a combined reading of the Article of Charges as well as the statement of imputation, it is crystal clear that the same by no stretch of imagination come within the purview of Rule-50 (4), 50 (5) and 50 (6) of the Service Rules. He further submitted that the bank has taken a stand that proceeding has been initiated against petitioner no.2 in his individual capacity as an officer, but in the articles of charge as well in the statement of imputation of misconduct, it is repeatedly stated that he instigated the officers to shout slogans etc. He further submitted that the allegations are bald and the petitioner no.2 organised and designed the demonstration is absurd and he had never given the call for demonstration. Hence, the imputation of misconduct is vague. He further argued that one Ganesh Chandra Mishra, who was working as the General Secretary of the petitioners' Association on the date of demonstration, has not been proceeded against and that the charge- sheet, which was issued to one Mr.Samar Mukharjee, who was the General Secretary of North East Circle and Vice-President of the Federation, was withdrawn. Mr. Mohanty submitted that the Chairman of the bank had made a statement after issuance of charge-sheet that the bank had decided to charge-sheet 28 office bearers, Secretary and 13 President in each of the 14 Circles for penalty and as such the disciplinary proceeding becomes an empty formality.
12. To buttress his submission, Mr. Mohanty relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vrs. V.K. Khanna and others , (2001) 2 Supreme Court Cases 330. Mr. Mohnaty further submitted that judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court should not be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana Financial Corporation and another Vrs. Jagdamba Oil Mills and another, (2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 496.
13. Per contra, Mr. R.K.Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite parties submitted that framing of charge does not give rise to any cause of action and an employee has no right to stall the disciplinary proceedings. In support of his submission, he cited a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, Min. of Defence & others Vrs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, A.I.R.2012 SC 2250 and also cited the decision in the case of Union of India and another Vrs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, AIR 2007 SC 906. Mr.Rath further submitted that pertaining to the very incident on 28.8.2012 action has been initiated in other States. In some of the States like Bihar, Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh, employees filed writ applications before the respective High Courts questioning initiation of the proceedings. The High Court of Madras in D. Thomas Franco Rajendra Dev (W.P.No.33731 of 2012) and in D.Suresh 14 Kumar (W.P.No.33732 of 2012) Vrs. State Bank of India did not interfere with the matter and dismissed the same. The High Court of Patna in the case of Lalit Kumar Prasad Singh (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case NO.499 of 2013) and in Anirudha Akhauri (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.570 of 2013) also took a similar view and dismissed the writ application. Furthermore, an identical matter came up before Madhya Pradesh High Court, which was also dismissed. The next plank of submission of Mr. Rath, learned Senior Counsel for the opposite parties is that the petitioners observed good conduct, discipline and integrity as required of them in terms of the Rules 50(4), 50(5) and 50(6) of the Service Rules are dependent on facts to be proved through evidence. The articles of charges, the defence taken by the petitioners etc. are required to be decided and crystallised by the enquiry officer in the enquiry. The next plank of submission of Mr. Rath is that the head of the organization in any department of the Government or even in any other company or corporation is duty bound to protect the organizations and in course of the same, if certain comments have been made, such comments cannot be construed to mean that no enquiry can be conducted against an employee, who has been alleged with delinquencies.
14. On the rival submissions of the Bar, two points hinges for our consideration.
1. Whether framing of charge gives rise to cause of action so as to enable the petitioners to challenge the same in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ? 15
2. Whether initiation of disciplinary proceeding and issuance of articles of charge are bad in law ?
15. First, we deal with the decision cited by Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in the case of State of Punjab supra wherein the Hon'ble apex Court speaking for the Bench through Justice M. Jagannadha Rao, in paragraph-33 thereof held as follows:-
Para-33 "While it is true that justifiability of the charges at the state of initiating a disciplinary proceeding cannot be possibly by delved into by any court pending inquiry but it is equally well settled that in the event there is an element of malice or mala fide, motive involved in the matter of issue of a charge-sheet or the authority concerned is so biased that the inquiry would be a mere farcical show and the conclusions are well known then and in that event law courts are otherwise justified in interfering at the earliest stage so as to avoid the harassment and humiliation of a public official. It is not a question of shielding any misdeed that the Court would be anxious to do, it is the due process of law which should permeate in the society and in the event of there being any affectation of such process of law that law courts ought to rise up to the occasion and the High Court, in the contextual facts, has delved into the issue on that score. On the basis of the findings no exception can be taken and that has been the precise reason as to why this Court dealt with the issue in so great a detail so as to examine the judicial propriety at this stage of the proceedings".
In the case of Union of India and another Vrs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, A.I.R. 2007 SC 906 the Bench speaking through Justice Markandey Katju in paragraphs 14 and 15 held as follows:-
Para-14. "The reason by ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition maybe held to be premature. A mere charge- sheet or show-cause notice does not given rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party 16 unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance".
Para-15. "Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause or charge sheet".
16. After having a survey of the earlier decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Secretary, Min. of Defence and Others Vrs. Prabash Chandra Mirdha, AIR 2012 Supreme Court 2250, the Bench speaking through Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S.Chauhan held as follows:-
Para-9. "Law does not permit quashing of charge-sheet in a routine manner. In case the delinquent employee has any grievance in respect of the charge-sheet he must raise the issued by filing a representation and wait for the decision of the disciplinary authority thereon. In case the charge- sheet is challenged before a court/tribunal on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings or delay in concluding the proceedings, the court/tribunal may quash the charge-sheet after considering the gravity of the charge and all relevant factors involved in the case weighing all the facts both for and against the delinquent employee and must reach the conclusion which is just and proper in the circumstances (Vide: The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh & Anr., AIR 1990 SC 1308; State of Punjab & Ors. V. Chaman Lal Goyal,(1995) 2 SCC 570; Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Faizabad v. Sachindra Nath Pandey & Ors., (1995) 3 SCC 134; (1995 AIR SCW 3028); Union of India & Anr. V. Ashok Kacker, 1995 Supp(1) SCC 180; Secretary to Government, Prohibition & Excise Department v. L. Srinivasan, (1996) 3 SCC 157; State of Andhra Pradesh v.17
N. Radhakishan, AIR 1998 SC 1833; Food Corporation of India & Anr. v. V.P.Bhatia, (1998) 9 SCC 131; Additional Supdt. Of Police v. T.Natarajan, 1999 SCC (L & S) 646;
M.V.Bijlani v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 3475; P.D.Agrawal v. State Bank of India & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 2064; and Government of A.P. & Ors. v. V. Appala Swamy, (2007) 14 SCC 49) : (AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 587).
Para-10. "In Secretary, Forest Department & Ors. v. Abdur Rasul Chowdhury, (2009) 7 SCC 305 : (AIR 2009 SC 2925), this Court dealt with the issue and observed that delay in concluding the domestic enquiry is not always fatal. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The unexplained protracted delay on the part of the employer may be one of the circumstances in not permitting the employer to continue with the disciplinary proceedings. At the same time, if the delay is explained satisfactorily then the proceedings should not be permitted to continue".
Para-11. "Ordinarily, a writ application does not lie against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies when some right of a party is infringed. In fat, charge- sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a charge-sheet or show-cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the Court. (Vide : State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, AIR 1987 SC 943; Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh & ors. (1996) 1 SCC 327 : (AIR 1996 SC 691) ;
Ulagappa & Ors. v. Div. Commr., Mysore & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3603 (2); Special Director & Anr. v. Modh.
Ghulam Ghouse & Anr., AIR 2004 SC 1467; and Union of India & Anr. v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, AIR 2007 SC
906)".
Para-12. "In State of Orissa & Anr. v. Sangram Keshari Mishra & Anr., (2010) 13 SCC 311: (2010 AIR SCW 6948), this Court held that normally a charge-sheet is not quashed prior to the conclusion of the enquiry on the ground that the facts stated in the charge are erroneous 18 for the reason that correctness or truth of the charge is the function of the disciplinary authority.
(See also: Union of India & Ors. v. Upendra Singh, (1994) 3 SCC
357) : (1994 AIR SCW 2777)".
Para-13. "Thus, the law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that charge-sheet cannot generally be a subject- matter of challenge as it does not adversely affect the rights of the delinquent unless it is established that the same has been issued by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. Neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the charge-sheet be quashed at an initial stage as it would be a premature stage to deal with the issues. Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the grounds that proceedings had been initiated at a belated stage or could not be concluded in a reasonable period unless the delay creates prejudice to the delinquent employee. Gravity of alleged misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while quashing the proceedings". (emphasis is ours)
17. On the anvil of the decisions cited supra, we have examined the present case. The petitioners have not challenged the charge-sheet on the ground that the authority issuing the same is not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. Much argument was advanced by Shri Ashok Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that on a combined reading of the article of charges as well as the statement of imputation, it is crystal clear that the present case does not come within the purview of Rule-50 (4), 50 (5) and 50 (6) of the Service Rules and that the charges levelled against petitioner no.2 are not based on fact since petitioner no.2 became the General Secretary of Association on 1.9.2012 i.e. much after 28.8.2012. It is too premature to consider the applicability of Rule-50(4), 50(5) and 50(6) of the Service Rules. Furthermore, after considering the reply to the show cause notice or after holding an enquiry, the authority 19 concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. Ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show cause notice or charge-sheet since at that stage, the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so.
18. Case of the petitioners does not come within the exceptions as pointed out by the Hon'ble apex Court in the cases of State of Punjab and Secretary, Min. of Defence and others supra. A feeble attempt was made by Mr. Mohanty that except petitioner no.2, no other officer at All India Level, who was not holding the post of General Secretary on 28.8.2012, has been proceeded against the demonstration. We are not at all impressed by the said submission. In Kerla State Electricity Board vrs. Saratchandran, P and another, A.I.R. 2009 S.C.191, the Hon'ble apex Court in para-23 of the report held that Article 14 of the Constitution is a positive concept. Provisions of Article 14 cannot be invoked only because some illegality has been committed by the employer as a result whereof some employee has obtained benefit. No equity can be claimed on the basis of an illegality. Merely because a charge-sheet issued to the delinquent employee has been withdrawn the same per se is not a ground to quash the same in respect of another employee.
20
19. Much emphasis was laid by Mr. Mohanty on the press note issued by the Chairman that the bank decided to charge-sheet 28 office bearers, Secretary and President in each of the 14 Circles for penalty and the disciplinary proceeding is an empty formality, we are of the view that the same is a sweeping and generalized statement made only with the intention to protect the image of the bank in the public eye made by the head of the bank and we observe that the enquiry to be conducted against the petitioner will in no way be influenced by such statement. However, such statement according to us, can never be construed to be a ground to quash the charges framed against the petitioner.
20. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble apex Court in the decisions cited supra, and on an anatomy of the pleadings and submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, we are in consensus ad-idem that the writ application is sans any merit and deserves dismissal. In the result, the writ application stands dismissed. No cost.
.............................
DR. A.K.RATH, J.
M.M.DAS, J. I agree.
............................
M.M.DAS, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 19th July, 2013/CRB..
21