SOUMYA DATTA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner, an office-bearer of the second petitioner officers' association of the State Bank of India, challenges a notice dated September 27, 2012, the accompanying articles of charge levelled against such employee and the statement of imputation of misconduct appended to the letter on the ground that the action initiated is mala fide and the material does not make out any case of misconduct within the meaning of the applicable rules. The State Bank of India apparently proposes to open its bank counters to its constituents on Sundays. The petitioner association caused a letter to be issued on August 28, 2012 to the local head office that a demonstration would be held at 2 pm on that day at such office to protest the move of the bank to keep its branches open on Sundays. Though the bank claims that the letter was received subsequent to the demonstration being held, nothing turns on such aspect of the matter. Demonstrations are said to have been simultaneously held at various local head offices and other branches of the bank all over the country. The petitioners say that similar notices were issued to at least 14 office-bearers of the officers' associations in different regions and most of them have subsequently been withdrawn. One of the notices was withdrawn on the ground that the noticee had been nominated as the officers' representative on the board of the bank. Another similar notice has been set aside in proceedings instituted before the Madras High Court challenging the same. The Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court has been placed by the petitioners.

(2.) The petitioners refer to a written warning of August 31, 2012 issued by the bank requiring the petitioners to refrain from indulging in the kind of activities conducted on August 28, 2012. The petitioners draw attention to a subsequent notice of September 22, 2012 complaining of the demonstration on August 28, 2012 being in violation of section 36AD of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949. The petitioners claim that the object of the exercise, culminating in the issuance of the impugned notice of September 27, 2012 to the petitioner No. 1, is to send a stern message to the officers that any kind of protest by the officers against any management decision would not be tolerated and would be dealt with heavily. The petitioners say that an example has been sought to be made out of the petitioner No. 1 to coerce the officers of the bank to toe the management line. The petitioners place excerpts from a speech contemporaneously delivered by the then chairman of the bank to the effect that the rank and file of the officers would not be dealt with oppressively and vindictively by the bank as a consequence of the protest but that some action would follow. The petitioners interpret the statement to imply that the bank would oppress and be vindictive against such office bearers of the association who are regarded as the masterminds of the lightning protest of August 28, 2012.

(3.) The articles of charge appended to the letter of September 27, 2012 allege that the petitioner No. 1 "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... (and that he) instigated other officers to commit misconduct by not maintaining good conduct and discipline." The articles refer to the violation of Rules 50(4), 50(5) and 50(6) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules. The statement of imputation of misconduct against the petitioner No. 1 makes out three cases of perceived improper behaviour. The petitioner No. 1 is accused of having "instigated officers of the bank to hold demonstrations within the Bank's premises/compound... participated in these demonstrations and also shouted slogans... (which) disturbed the peace... and there was hindrance in Bank's working and disturbance in the regular business activity...." The second count of charge on perceived misconduct accuses the petitioner No. 1 of misbehaving "by shouting slogans and demonstrating with intention to disturb peace, disrupt... and discouraged Bank's officers from performing their lawful duties...."