Vigilance advice before charge sheet: disciplinary action was quashed, with retiral benefits allowed but no back wages.

A charge sheet in a vigilance-angle matter was quashed because the Bank had treated the case as requiring the Central Vigilance Commission's first-stage advice before issuance, yet served the charge sheet before that advice was received and considered. The Court held that the Bank could not depart from its own stated position, and the delay, proximity to superannuation, and absence of proof of receipt of the advice justified interference with the disciplinary action. The disciplinary proceedings were set aside, and the employee was granted retiral benefits, but not back wages or allowances.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disciplinary proceedings and charge sheet were liable to be quashed for being issued before receipt and consideration of the Central Vigilance Commission's first-stage advice in a case having a vigilance angle, and whether retiral benefits were admissible without back wages.

Analysis: The Bank itself treated the matter as one involving a vigilance angle and sought the Commission's first-stage advice, which under the applicable vigilance framework is obtained before issuance of the charge sheet. The affidavits filed before the High Court also recorded that the charge sheet would be issued after receipt of the advice. Notwithstanding that position, the charge sheet was served before the advice was received and considered. In these facts, the Court held that the Bank could not depart from its own stand and proceed unilaterally. The long delay, the proximity to superannuation, and the absence of any material showing receipt of the advice supported interference with the disciplinary action.

Conclusion: The disciplinary proceedings, including the charge sheet, were quashed and set aside. The appellant was held entitled to retiral benefits, but not to back wages or allowances.

---