Charge Memo Under Wrong Provision Of Law Will Not Vitate Entire Disciplinary Proceeding- Madras High Court

A Madras High Court Bench of Justice L Victoria Gowri has stressed that a charge memo under the wrong provision of the law will not vitate an entire disciplinary proceeding.

In that context, it was said that, "Having submitted himself to the entire procedure undertaken by the employer Bank in view of the amalgamation process, the petitioner cannot question the legality of the disciplinary proceeding which has been initiated against him. Visiting an employee with a charge memo under the wrong provision of law will not vitiate the entire disciplinary proceeding."

Counsel Ananth C Rajesh appeared for the petitioner, while Counsel N Dilip Kumar appeared for the respondents.

In a past writ Petition, the petitioner sought to quash a charge memo dated 22.07.2020, which had been issued against them for alleged irregularities in their employment as an Office Assistant in a regional rural bank. The petitioner had previously filed another writ petition, which had resulted in an order directing the bank to appoint a new inquiry officer. However, the bank had not complied with this order.

The respondent bank argued that the new writ petition was not maintainable due to constructive res judicata and Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. They contended that the petitioner had abandoned their right to challenge the charge memo in the earlier petition, making the subsequent petition invalid. The petitioner claimed the charge memo was invalid as the relevant regulation had not been properly notified.

On the other hand, the petitioner asserted that the charge memo was invalid from the outset because the relevant regulation, under which it was issued, had not been properly notified.

The Court noted that from the date of appointment, such contract gets acted upon and the same subsists continuously without interruption till the date of the employee attaining superannuation and is allowed to retire automatically or otherwise the employee is subjected to break in service in the instances of resignation by the employee or termination of service by the employer on notice respectively.

In light of the same, the Court observed that although the disciplinary proceeding was initiated under a regulation which was not notified, the same had to be appreciated in a positive direction. In that context, it was said that, "it is needless to say that the hypertechnical argument of the petitioner that, the disciplinary proceeding which has been initiated under regulation 39 of the Tamil Nadu Grama Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2019 is per se illegal could not be prudent. It is necessary to mention here that he has never ever challenged his suspension either in W.P(MD)No.11817 of 2023 or in this case, but has challenged only the charge memo, dated 22.07.2020."

The Court directed that an enquiry officer be appointed in the matter of the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner, and the petitioner be given a chance to defend himself by furnishing all the documents pertaining to the disciplinary proceeding.

Cause Title: PM Jegadeesan vs Tamil Nadu Grama Bank & Anr.

Click here to read/download the Judgment