Bombay High Court: In a writ petition dealing with whether, after the transfer of the specified assets and liabilities of a co-operative bank to a nationalised bank on amalgamation, the petitioner’s service benefits and absorption could be granted from the later date of withdrawal of chargesheet, the Division Bench of G. S. Kulkarni* and Aarti Sathe, JJ., held that the withdrawal of the chargesheet necessarily has a retrospective effect and that mere issuance and subsequent withdrawal of a chargesheet does not disrupt the service. The Court directed that the petitioner must be granted the benefits available to similarly placed employees absorbed on amalgamation.
Background
The petitioner had joined Memon Co-operative Bank Ltd. (MCBL) as a clerk and was promoted as Assistant General Manager. On 23 January 2009, Reserve Bank of India superseded the Board of Directors and appointed an Administrator. A scheme of arrangement or transfer of specific assets and liabilities of MCBL to the nationalised bank, Bank of Baroda (BOB), was framed under Section 18(b), Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (Act of 2002). On 18 December 2010, the petitioner was dismissed from service by the then General Manager, which was challenged by filing a writ petition.
By an interim order dated 15 April 2011, the Court observed that if under the scheme the employee is required to be absorbed, upon setting aside the impugned order, the appropriate authority would take necessary steps. On 18 April 2011, all specified assets and liabilities stood transferred to BOB, and MCBL ceased to exist, consequent to which its officers became officers of BOB. By final order dated 27 July 2011, the Court set aside the dismissal, restoring the status quo ante as operated prior to 18 December 2010. Thereafter, on 17 November 2011, a charge sheet and suspension were issued by the liquidator, which the petitioner contended was without any authority being in contravention of the final order dated 27 July 2011.
Aggrieved by the dismissal, the petitioner filed the present petition. The enquiry proceedings were stayed by interim order. The Court also directed that the petitioner to appear before the Screening Committee of BOB, which found him suitable for absorption but subject to the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. On 3 February 2024, the chargesheet issued by the liquidator was withdrawn. The petitioner sought absorption, but BOB took no action.
On 11 June 2025, BOB’s advocate, through draft consent terms, offered a settlement to the petitioner instead of absorption in service, which was refused by the petitioner stating that the proposal was arbitrary and would cause irreparable prejudice to him. The petitioner also submitted an appeal to the Managing Director and CEO of BOB and other officers reiterating the request for absorption in the service after withdrawal of the charge sheet, but to no avail.
The petitioner’s counsel asserted that the petitioner was deemed to be in continued service and was entitled to benefits available to similarly placed officers absorbed under the scheme. On the other hand, BOB, while not disputing the factual matrix or the petitioner’s continuation as reflected in the Court’s orders, submitted that regularisation could be considered only from the date of withdrawal of the chargesheet, i.e., 3 February 2024, as per the scheme of amalgamation.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the withdrawal of the charge sheet necessarily had a retrospective effect, as observed by the Court in its order dated 27 July 2011. The Court opined that mere issuance of a chargesheet, and its subsequent withdrawal did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner, as it did not result in any break in the continuity of employment or in taking away any benefit that would otherwise be available to him. Thus, the Court observed that the petitioner must be granted the benefit as recognised in the order dated 27 July 2011.
The Court noted that the dismissal order dated 18 December 2010 was already quashed on the ground that the General Manager was not competent to pass it and it was also directed that status-quo ante be restored as operating prior to 18 December 2010. The Court observed that because of such a direction, the petitioner continued to be an employee of MCBL, being entitled to all the benefits which were available to the other employees of MCBL who were absorbed by BOB on amalgamation and that there could not have been any differentiation between him and the other employees.
The Court also noted that since the chargesheet stood withdrawn on 3 February 2024, there was no reason for BOB not to treat the petitioner fairly or discriminate him from the other similarly placed employees of the MCBL, given that he was also found suitable in the screening as undertaken by BOB, with the only condition being that such absorption was subject to the outcome of the enquiry. The Court observed that no enquiry was going to be held as the chargesheet itself was withdrawn.
Accordingly, the Court, while allowing the petition, observed that the benefit of the screening test and the earlier orders of the Court, whereby the petitioner was reinstated in service by setting aside the order of dismissal dated 18 December 2010, must be given to him “in letter and spirit.” The Court directed BOB to appoint the petitioner in Scale-V with effect from 18 April 2011 in accordance with the provision of statutory scheme with all consequential benefits including promotion in accordance with the Rules of BOB.
[Arif Mohd. Ghasswala v. Siddhartha Bhattacharya, Writ Petition No.1221 of 2012, decided on 6-2-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice G. S. Kulkarni
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Ranbir Singh with Eshan Patel i/by R.D. Bhat
For the Respondent: Lancy D’souza with Deepika Agarwal, V.M. Parkar