IMPORTANT POINT
Termination - foundation- misconduct or suitability.

Judgment :-

G.S. Singhvi, J.

1. Whether the alleged use of unfair means by Palak Modi and Prabhat Dixit (hereinafter described as ‘the private respondents’) in the test held by appellant No.1 – State Bank of India (for short, ‘the Bank’) constituted the foundation of the decision taken by General Manager (NW-I), State Bank of India, Human Resource Department (respondent No.3) to terminate their services under Rule 16(3) of the State Bank of India (Officers’ Service) Rules, 1992 (for short, ‘the Rules’) is the pivotal question which arises for consideration in these appeals filed against order dated 17.11.2011 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition Nos.1298/2011 and 1512/2011.

2. In response to an advertisement issued by appellant No.1, which was published on 1.7.2008, the private respondents applied for appointment as Probationary Officers. They appeared in the two-tier examination held by the Bank, which was followed by group discussion and interview. On being declared successful, the private respondents were appointed as Probationary Officers vide letters dated 5.5.2006, paragraph 5 of which reads as under:

“5. You will be on probation for a period of two years from the date of appointment. Your confirmation in the Bank shall be subject to:

(a) Satisfactory reports from our own sources as well as from District Authorities regarding your character and antecedents.

(b) Satisfactory completion of the in-service training during probation.

(c) Satisfactory performance in the evaluation tests to be conducted by the Bank during the probation period. Your failure in evaluation tests twice will make you unfit for continuing in Bank's service and in that eventuality, your appointment will be cancelled and your services terminated by the Bank.”

3. Vide letter dated 22.12.2010 of Deputy Managing Director and Corporate Development Officer of the Bank, the Probationary Officers of 2009-10 batch were informed that they are due for confirmation on 15.5.2011 and, therefore, they may appear in the test proposed to be conducted on 27.2.2011. Paragraph 2 of that letter which has bearing on the decision of these appeals reads as under:

“2. The relative extract from the extant policy for confirmation of probationary officers is reproduced below:-

i) The confirmation test shall be held after 21 months from the date of appointment of the probationary officers (during the probation period)

ii) Candidates scoring a minimum of 75% marks in the written test would qualify for the further process that will include group discussion and interview. Candidates scoring minimum 75% marks in-group discussion/interview also shall be confirmed and placed in the grade of MMGS-II. Those scoring less than 75% marks but minimum 50% (45% for SC/ST/PWD) marks in the written test shall be confirmed in the grade of JMGS-I. Candidates scoring less than 50% (45% for SC/ST/PWD) marks will be given two options as under:

OPTION-I Candidate will be required to appear in another confirmation test on or before completion of 24th month of his/her probation and in the event of not qualifying in the retest his/her services will be terminated with immediate effect and he/she will be paid one month's emoluments in lieu of one month's notice in terms of Rule 16(3)(a) of SBI Officer's Service Rule read with the present policy of confirmation of Probationary officers as application hitherto.

OPTION-II

Candidate's probation will be extended by a further period of maximum one year in terms of two periods of six months each (extending the total probation period to a maximum of 36 months) with the provision to appear in 02 more confirmation tests at 06 monthly intervals i.e. 02nd test in 27th month & 03rd test in 33rd month of his/her probation respectively with the following conditions:-

In the event of:

Passing the proposed 02nd test after 27th month of probation candidate will be confirmed as JMGS-I on completion of 30th month of probation including extended period of