Hyderabad: Telangana high court has quashed disciplinary proceedings and the compulsory retirement of a Union Bank of India officer, ruling that default in repaying his personal credit card dues could not be treated as misconduct warranting departmental action.Calling the punishment disproportionate and unsustainable in law, despite nearly three decades of service, the court set aside the charge sheet, inquiry report and the compulsory retirement order recently. It directed the bank to treat the petitioner as continuing in service till superannuation and extend all consequential benefits within eight weeks.Justice Juvvadi Sridevi issued the order while hearing M Prakash Babu, who joined the bank as a probationary officer in 1979 and was compulsorily retired in 2009.Stating that the bank’s action against the employee was clearly excessive and shocked the conscience of the court, Justice Sridevi held that he could not have been penalised for failing to clear dues on a gold credit card with a sanctioned limit of Rs 1 lakh, which swelled to over Rs 1.68 lakh due to accumulated interest and charges.The petitioner contended that he faced genuine financial distress, including medical expenses, unpaid leave during illness, and his daughter’s wedding costs, and that he authorised the bank to recover dues directly from his salary.He argued that the transaction was purely contractual, between the banker and the customer, not the employer and the employee, and that substantial recovery already came from his salary with no loss to the bank.The bank argued that the officer had an adverse service record with multiple past penalties, that he exceeded his credit limit and ignored repeated reminders for nearly 22 months until the account became a non-performing asset, and that he voluntarily withdrew his departmental appeal and accepted terminal benefits, making the belated challenge impermissible.The court observed that the credit card was issued as a commercial banking product, not a service condition, and the relationship was that of a creditor and a borrower.“Since the bank itself held authorisation to recover dues from his salary, and no pecuniary loss was ultimately caused, the charge did not amount to ‘misconduct’ under the applicable conduct regulations,” the court held.The court further noted that the bank could not introduce the petitioner’s alleged past disciplinary record in its counter-affidavit when those incidents were never part of the original charge-sheet or inquiry.The court also found that withdrawal of the appeal was not voluntary, given the petitioner’s claim that terminal benefits were withheld pending withdrawal, and directed the bank to extend all consequential benefits within eight weeks.
