State Bank Of India: State Bank Of India: A. K. Soundrarajan vs S. Vuaya Kumar: T. Dayakar Rao: Cenrtral Board Of Directors, State Bank Of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1990 Supreme(SC) 359

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L.M. SHARMA AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.
State Bank of India, Appellant

Versus

S. Vijaya Kumar, Respondent.
Civil Appeal Nos. 3392-3394 of 1990 (arising out of S. L. P. Nos. 4176 and 15235 of 1988 and 2069 of 1990)

Decided on 18-7-1990.
AND
State Bank of India, Appellant

Versus

T. Dayakar Rao, Respondent.
AND
A. K. Soundrarajan, Appellant

Versus

Central Board of Directors, S. B. I. and others, Respondents.

Headnote:
Constitution of India - Article 136 - State Bank of India General Regulations, 1955 - Regulation 55(2) - State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, 197 - Rule 50 - State Bank of India Act, 1955 - Sections 43, 49 and 50(1) - Executive Committee of the Central Board - Bank - Employment and Service matter - Gross irregularities and corrupt practices - Dismissed from service - Appointments and promotions to various categories of employees in Bank - Respondent was appointed as a Probationary Officer (Gr. 1 Officer) by an order of Executive Committee of Central Board of State Bank of India - Respondent was chargesheeted in respect of gross irregularities and corrupt practices and was ultimately dismissed from service by an order passed by Chief General Manager of Bank - Respondent filed a Writ Petition before Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging his order of dismissal. A Division Bench of High Court heard writ petition along with Appeal and allowed writ petition but dismissed writ appeal by order - Held, Regulation 55 has been amended by a resolution of Central Board with retrospective effect - It has now been made clear in the explanation that for purpose of clause (b) the term appointing authority shall mean and include authority who has been designed as such in respect of such class or grade of officers or employees to which the officer or employee concerned, as case may be belongs at time when such order is pass or any proceeding leading to such order termination is initiated - Hallmark of status is attachment to a legal relationship of rights and duties imposed by public law and not by mere agreement by parties - Emolument of Government servant and his terms of service are governed by statute or statutory rules which may be unilaterally altered by Government without consent of employee - It was further held in above case that the petition had no vested contractual right in regard to terms of his service and that same can be altered unilaterally - We may further add that prohibition if any to alter terms and conditions can be found only under Constitution of India and in case power of rule or law making authority is not circumscribed or limited by any constitutional mandate then it has power to amend such terms and condition of service unilaterally without consent of employee - Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

KASLIWAL. J. :— Special leave granted.

2. All the above cases are disposed of by one single order as identical questions of law are involved in all these cases. In order to appreciate the controversy, facts in brief are stated of all these cases.

SLP No. 4176 of 1988:

3. The respondent Vijaya Kumar was appointed as a Probationary Officer (Gr. 1 Officer) by an order of the Executive Committee of the Central Board of the State Bank of India on 7-12-71. The respondent was chargesheeted in respect of gross irregularities and corrupt practices and was ultimately dismissed from service by an order dt. 22-12-88 passed bv the Chief General Manager of the Bank. Shri Vijaya Kumar filed a Writ Petition No. 194/83 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging his order of dismissal. A Division Bench of the High Court heard the writ petition along with Appeal No. 141/86 and allowed the writ petition but dismissed the writ appeal by order dated 26-11-87*. The State Bank aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the High Court passed in Writ Petn. No. 194/83 has filed this writ petition only on one ground that the appointing authority of Vijaya Kumar was Executive Committee of the Bank and as such Chief General Manager being an authority lower than the appointing authority was not competent to pass an order of dismissal.

SLP No. 15235 of 1988:

* reported in 1988 Lab IC NOC 45: (1988) 4 Serv LR 703 (Andh Pra)

4. In this case the respondent T. Dayakar Rao was appointed as a Clerk in the State Bank of India in the month of October, 1962. in the month of July, 1971 he was selected as a Trainee Officer and was given job training at various branches of the Bank for two years. While he was working as a Bank Manager he 81 was charge-sheeted for irregularities committed by him during the period 1-9-79 to 14-6-80. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated on 29-7-82. On 6-3-84 the Chief General Manager in the capacity of disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal. T. Dayakar Rao filed a Writ Petition No. 1204/ 84 in the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court by an order dt. 13th August, 1988 allowed the writ petition following the decision of Division Bench given in Writ Appeal No. 141/ 86 dated 26-11-87*. The Bank aggrieved against the aforesaid order has filed the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution.

SLP No. 2069 of 1990:

* Reported, in 1988 Lab IC NOC 45: (1988) 4 Serv LR 70 (Andh Pra)

5. In this case Shri A. K. Soundararajan appellant was appointed as Technical Officer by an order dated 14-6-68 of the Executive Committee of the Central Board of the Bank. It was mentioned in the order that Shri Soundararajan would be governed by the State Bank of India (Officers & Assistants) Service Rules. Post of Technical Officer was considered equivalent to Staff Officer Grade III under the Rules. He was suspended and given a charge-sheet on 23-4-82 and was dismissed by an order dated 31-3-83 passed by the Chief General Manager. Shri Soundararajan filed a Writ Petition No. 7108/ 85 in the High Court challenging his order of dismissal. Learned single Judge of the High Court by order dated 31-10-88 allowed the writ petition by following the decision given by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 1204/ 84 in the case of T. Dayakar Rao. The State Bank aggrieved against the order of the learned single Judge filed an appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench in this case took into consideration an amendment made in Regulation 55 by a resolution dated 25-8-88 made applicable with retrospective effect. The Division Bench by order dated 30th November, 1989 allowed the appeal filed by the Bank. Shri A. K. Soundararajan aggrieved against the order of the High Court has filed this Special Leave Petition.

6. It would be necessary to narrate the facts of SLP (C) No. 5139/ 88 (State Bank of India v. Hanumantha Rao) disposed of by an order of this Court dated 30th January, 1990.

7. Hanumantha Rao was promoted as Grade 1 O

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1990 Supreme(SC) 359

Cases Referred (3)