On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court of India quashed disciplinary proceedings initiated by Union Bank of India against its former officer, A.M. Kulshrestha, citing procedural violations and arbitrariness. The Court found that the bank had failed to adhere to its own regulations, which required obtaining advice from the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) before proceeding with disciplinary actions in vigilance-related cases.

• Violation of Procedural Norms: Union Bank acknowledged the vigilance aspect of the case and sought the CVC’s first-stage advice, as mandated by its Regulation 19 and relevant CVC circulars. However, the bank proceeded to issue a charge sheet without waiting for the CVC’s input, thereby breaching its own procedural requirements.
• Supreme Court’s Observations: The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and A.G. Masih, emphasized that once the bank had sought the CVC’s advice, it was obligated to await and consider that advice before taking further action. The Court described the bank’s actions as “mala fide and arbitrary,” noting that the appellant was subjected to disciplinary proceedings at the end of an unblemished 34-year career.
• Outcome: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the charge sheet and disciplinary proceedings, and directed Union Bank to release full retirement benefits to Mr. Kulshrestha. However, it denied the payment of back wages.

This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to established procedures, especially when dealing with vigilance matters, and reinforces the role of the CVC in ensuring fairness in disciplinary actions.

sources