STATE BANK OF INDIA OFFICER'S ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED THROUGH IT'S CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.) 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 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.