IMPORTANT POINT
Order of Appointing Authority dismissing respondent from service after granting opportunity of hearing to respondent, cannot be interfered with.

JUDGMENT :

BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.02.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in LPA No. 2035 of 2016, whereby the High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant-Bank and confirmed the order passed by the Single Bench.

3. The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent while posted as a Branch Manager at Marufganj Branch and at various other branches, was found to have committed various lapses, in respect of which he was suspended on 14.06.1993 in terms of Rule 50A(i)(a) of SBIOSR, 1992. On the departmental proceedings having been conducted against him, the Inquiry Authority had submitted its report on 09.03.1998, whereby some of the allegations were found to be proved and some were found to be partly proved. The Disciplinary Authority agreed with some of the findings recorded by the Inquiry Authority and called upon the respondent to make his submissions on the same. However thereafter the matter was sent to the Appointing Authority, which imposed the penalty of “Dismissal from Service” as per the order dated 11.08.1999.

4. The respondent being aggrieved by the said order had filed a Writ Petition being no. 2739 of 2000 before the High Court which came to be allowed by the Single Bench vide order dated 26.03.2003. The Appellant-Bank aggrieved by the said order had filed an LPA being no. 378 of 2003. On 09.05.2003, the Division Bench stayed the implementation of the order dated 26.03.2003 passed by the Single Bench, however finally dismissed the said LPA vide order dated 22.04.2010. In the meantime, the respondent attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.2009. The Appellant-Bank having filed SLP (C) No. 16541 of 2010 challenging the order dated 22.04.2010 passed by the Division Bench, the same came to be allowed by this Court on 25.11.2013. While allowing the SLP, this Court observed as under:

“10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis.

11. The Writ Court while deciding the writ petition filed by the respondent against the orders passed by the Appointing Authority had followed the dicta of this court wherein it is said that the person who hears the matter should necessarily pass an order. The Division Bench of the High Court in its judgment has referred to the subsequent decisions of this Court. In our opinion, we need not have to refer to those decisions. It is now a well settled principle that the person who hears the matter requires to pass an order.

12. Since, that is the view of the Learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that such a view cannot be taken exception to by us. However, the Division Bench while rejecting the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant-bank has made certain observations which in our opinion, would not arise in the matter of this nature. Therefore, we cannot sustain the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.

13. In the result, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.378 of 2003. Since we are told that the delinquent officer has already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, we now direct the Appointing Authority to take appropriate decision as expeditious as possible, at any rate within two months from the receipt of copy of this order.

14. All the contentions of all the parties are kept open.

Ordered accordingly.”

5. In view of the above order passed by this Court, the Appointing Authority issued a show-cause notice to the respondent on 06.02.2014, to which the respondent submitted his response on 10.02.2014. The Appointing Authority after granting personal hearing to the respondent on 14.02.2014, passed an order on 17.02.2014 imposing upon the respondent the penalty of “Dismissal from Service” in terms of Rule 67(J) of SBISOR w.e.f. 11.08.1999 and treating his period of suspension as not on duty.