Former ICICI Bank CEO Chanda Kochhar’s Plea Challenging her Termination Dismissed in Supreme Court

Service conditions of Ms Kochhar are not governed by any statute: Bombay High Court 

The former CEO of ICICI Bank came under the scanner for her role in loan sanctions to private firms apart from Videocon and Matix Fertilisers during her tenure as chief of the bank. The Enforcement Directorate had suspected Chanda Kochhar of using her husband’s firm as a vehicle for benefiting in exchange of illegal loan sanctions. Earlier, ED had also provisionally attached Chanda Kochhar's assets, including shares and her Mumbai apartment, altogether worth Rs 78 crore. 

It is also pertinent to point out that a committee was constituted under the chairmanship of former Supreme Court judge Justice BN Srikrishna. The Board of Directors of ICICI Bank terminated Chanda Kochhar’s employment based on the committee's report. Eventually, on January 30, 2019, Chanda Kochhar was informed by the Board that it decided to treat her separation from the bank as ‘termination for cause’.  

Later, the bank revoked her retirement benefits including her unpaid amounts, medical benefits and stock options. Challenging the same along with the order of termination, Ms Kochhar filed a petition in the Bombay High Court. The court dismissed her petition on the ground that ICICI Bank was a private body, and that the service conditions of Kochhar are not governed by any statute. 

Ms Kochhar approached the apex court against the order passed by Bombay High Court. Ms Kochhar was represented by  Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi. The learned Counsel argued that it was not open to ICICI Bank to revoke the petitioner's retirement benefits. He further contended that the step to terminate Ms Kocchar was taken without the prior approval of the Reserve Bank of India.  

“ How can my resignation be converted to termination”. When the employee is not covered under section 35B of the Banking Regulation Act”.- Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi. 

The bank did not sack Ms Kocchar ”: Supreme Court

The Bench held that it is not interested in the impugned order as this issue falls within the purview of private contract between employee and bank.  

Further, the bench said that “You decided to go out on your own, but now you are saying they are terminating you. The bank is not sacking you”. 

In spite of petitioner's plea to list the matter for next week, the bench dismissed the petition.