"Rajasthan HC: No ‘Co-Accused’ in Disciplinary Action—Upholds Separate Inquiries Against Bank Officers, Orders Composite Hearings to Prevent Conflicting Outcomes"
Isabella Mariam
The Rajasthan High Court has disposed of a petition by suspended officers of a public sector bank challenging the issuance of multiple charge-sheets and the initiation of independent disciplinary proceedings. The Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, upon examining the respective roles of the officers and the competence of distinct disciplinary authorities within the organizational structure, recorded that the separation of proceedings did not contravene the applicable regulations.
The Court addressed the grievance raised under Regulation 10 of the Bank of Baroda Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976, in the context of disciplinary enquiries against officers involved in allegations related to business development activities at a bank branch. The Court took into account that the charges against the officers, though arising from a related set of facts, were not identical and that the officers fell under separate disciplinary jurisdictions based on their ranks.
Further, the Court also examined claims regarding non-supply of documents at the stage of charge-sheets and noted that the officers were granted inspection rights, thereby fulfilling procedural safeguards under Regulation 6.3 of the same regulations.
The Court declined to stay or quash the disciplinary proceedings and suspension orders challenged by the petitioners but directed that, where applicable, composite enquiries may proceed within the framework of the applicable internal hierarchy.
The petitioners, employees of Bank of Baroda under suspension, had approached the Court with multiple prayers. They sought to set aside the charge-sheets issued against them, to stay their suspension, and to direct the respondents to conduct a common disciplinary proceeding under Regulation 10 of the Bank of Baroda Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976. They further prayed for reinstatement to their posts and access to documents and evidence necessary for their defence, alleging that documents had not been furnished with the charge-sheets.
It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners, represented by Advocates Lokesh Mishra and Narendra Kumar Gautam, that four separate charge-sheets were issued to four delinquent officers, including the petitioners and one Abhishek Agarwal. Counsel argued that this action violated Regulation 10, which provides that “where two or more officer employees are concerned in a case, the authority competent to impose a major penalty on all such officer employees may make an order directing that disciplinary proceedings against all of them may be taken in a common proceeding.”
The petitioners asserted that given the factual similarity of charges, all four officers ought to be subject to a single joint proceeding to avoid inconsistent decisions and duplication of evidence. They also invoked Regulation 6.3, claiming that charge-sheets were issued without supplying a list of documents, witnesses, or other materials necessary to mount an effective defence.
In support of their arguments, the petitioners relied on judgments from the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Allahabad High Court, including Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli v. Gulabhia M. Lad (2010 AIR SCW 3785) and Neeraj Vishnu Srivastava v. Executive Director, Dena Bank & Others, Service Bench No.964/2010.
Opposing the petition, respondents, represented by Advocate Rupin Kala, submitted that separate proceedings were justified based on the varying designations of the petitioners and corresponding differences in disciplinary authorities. It was submitted that Regulation 10 was discretionary, not mandatory, as evidenced by the wording “may” in the regulation. The respondents also submitted that the documents relied upon in the charge-sheets had been made available for inspection to the petitioners.
The respondents produced Circular No. BCC/BR/115/782 dated 22.12.2023 and Circular No. BCC/BR/115/727 dated 01.12.2023, which specified the disciplinary authority for each category of officer. Based on these, the respondents argued that since Chief Manager Abhishek Agarwal and Senior Manager Manish Kumar Balwani fell under the jurisdiction of the General Manager & Zonal Head, and Officers Sonika Jain and Ranjnee Veronica Lakra fell under the Deputy General Manager (Compliance & Assurance), distinct enquiries under separate authorities were legally warranted.
The respondents also pointed out that while there were some overlapping charges, the allegations were neither identical nor uniformly applicable to all officers.
The Court examined the contentions in detail, starting with Regulation 10. It recorded, “Though, the Regulation 10 of the Regulations of 1976 indicates that the disciplinary proceedings should be common where two or more officers are involved in a case,” but noted that the regulation uses the term “may,” implying discretion and not compulsion.
The Court referred to the factual matrix presented in the respondents’ reply, which detailed the specific charges against each officer in tabular form. The Court noted that charges related to supervisory lapses, fraudulent transactions, violation of the four-eye principle, and maintenance of insurance registers were not uniform across all petitioners. For instance, “Being Branch Head, he failed in overall supervision, care and control at the Nathdwara Branch,” was a charge specific to Abhishek Agarwal, while others related to transaction entries or verification duties were distributed among the petitioners.
The Court recorded, “Though, some of the charges against all the four delinquent employees are different and some of them are common, hence the disciplinary proceedings of the delinquent Abhishek Agarwal and Manish Kumar Balwani can be conducted by the General Manager & Zonal Head, while the disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent Sonika Jain and Ranjnee Veronica Lakra can be conducted by the Deputy General Manager (Compliance & Assurance) in a composite manner.”
The Court further cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Balbir Chand v. Food Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. (1997) 3 SCC 371, observing that “in disciplinary proceedings, the concept of co-accused does not arise,” and that each officer has the right to summon others as witnesses if necessary. It added that “normally all the delinquents would be prone to seek split up of proceedings in their/his bid to delay the proceedings.”
Addressing the Regulation 6.3 argument, the Court recorded that inspection of documents had been allowed to the petitioners. Referring to K.N. Gupta v. Union of India, it noted, “It is not the case of the petitioner that he wanted to take copies of those documents and he was prevented from taking copies but was permitted to take only extracts.” The Court also referred to B.L. Kohli v. Union of India and Onkar Singh Khosla v. Union of India to state that “if the documents are allowed to be inspected by the delinquent officer/employee then non-supply of documents to him/her would not vitiate the proceedings.”
The Court found no procedural irregularity that would warrant quashing the charge-sheets on this ground.
The Court addressed the petitioners’ argument on the merits of the charges and recorded, “The petitioners can put their defence by way of filing their reply before the Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority, but in any case, this Court cannot act as an Enquiry Officer or Disciplinary Authority to adjudicate upon the correctness of the allegations.”
The Court further referred to Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan (1993) 2 SCC 56, where it was held that disciplinary proceedings are permissible even against quasi-judicial officers where there is material showing misconduct or undue favour.
The Court also referred to State of Orissa v. Sangram Keshari Misra (2010) 13 SCC 311, observing that “normally a charge-sheet is not quashed prior to conclusion of the enquiry on the ground that facts stated therein are erroneous.”
The Court concluded with the following directive: “the instant writ petition stands disposed of with direction to the respondents to conduct one composite enquiry against Manish Kumar Balwani along-with Abhishek Agarwal under the competent authority i.e., General Manager and Zonal Manager whereas in the case of Sonika Jain and Ranjnee Veronica Lakra, a composite enquiry and disciplinary proceedings can be conducted under the competent authority i.e., Deputy General Manager (Compliance & Assurance) in order to avoid contradictory and conflicting orders.”
The Court also disposed of all pending applications along with the main petition.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner : Lokesh Mishra Advocate and Narendra Kumar Gautam Advocate
For the Respondent : Rupin Kala, Advocate
Case Title: Manish Kumar Balwani & Ors. v. Bank of Baroda & Ors.
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17059/2024
Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
[Read/Download order]
