Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
State Bank Of India & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Navin Kumar Sinha – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1279 of 2024
Decided On : 19-11-2024
(A) State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979 – Order 19 – State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules, 1992 – Rules 19 and 68(1) – Penalty – Reversal by High Court – When a departmental proceeding is continued by reason of legal fiction, delinquent officer would be deemed to be in service although he has reached his age of superannuation – Departmental proceeding is not initiated merely by issuance of a show cause notice – It is initiated only when a charge-sheet is issued – Charge memo was issued to respondent after his extension of service was over – Where disciplinary proceeding itself is without jurisdiction, upholding the same on specious plea that it was not challenged on the ground of lack of jurisdiction would be tantamount to giving imprimatur to a patently illegal proceeding – Relationship of master and servant between appellants and respondent came to be severed on and from expiry of date of extension of service – Factum of receipt of subsistence allowance thereafter or respondent declaring that he would superannuate on a later date on attaining age of 60 years would not make any difference to legal and factual scenario – Attaining 60 years of service (earlier 58 years) is not the sole criterion of superannuation of an officer serving in SBI. (Paras 19, 22, 24, 26, 28 and 29)
(B) State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules, 1992 – Rules 19 and 68(1) – State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979 – Order 19 – Penalty – Reversal by High Court – Subsisting disciplinary proceeding i.e. one initiated before superannuation of delinquent officer may be continued post superannuation by creating a legal fiction of continuance of service of delinquent officer for the purpose of conclusion of disciplinary proceeding, in this case as per Rule 19(3) of Service Rules – But no disciplinary proceeding can be initiated after delinquent employee or officer retires from service on attaining age of superannuation or after extended period of service – Appellants directed to release all service dues of respondent expeditiously. (Paras 31 and 33)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal by special leave is directed against Judgment and order dated 11.02.2020 passed by a Division Bench of High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in LPA No. 505 of 2016. Appellants are State Bank of India and its officers. Single Judge allowed writ petition and set aside order of penalty on the ground that disciplinary proceeding was initiated after superannuation of respondent including extended period of service. Appeal filed by appellants was also dismissed by a Division Bench of High Court.
Findings of Court:
If any of the three contingencies are fulfilled, an officer would be superannuated. Respondent had actually superannuated from service in SBI on 26.12.2003 on completion of 30 years of service but his service was extended prior thereto on 05.08.2003 from 27.12.2003 to 01.10.2010. Post 01.10.2010 there was no further extension of service.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2.1. Respondent, an officer of the State Bank of India (SBI), was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding following which the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on him. Departmental appeal filed by the respondent against the dismissal order was rejected by the appellate authority; so also the petition for review. Respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of penalty as upheld by the appellate authority and the reviewing authority. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of penalty on the ground that the disciplinary proceeding was initiated after superannuation of the respondent including the extended period of service. Therefore, such disciplinary proceeding was held to be void ab initio and the consequential order of penalty set aside with a further direction to the appellants to pay the retiral and other dues of the respondent.
2.2. Appeal filed by the appellants was also dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court. Against such dismissal of the letters patent appeal, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11413 of 2020 was filed by the appellants. This Court by order dated 16.10.2020 had issued notice. As an interim measure, it was directed that the contempt proceedings stated to have been initiated by the respondent against the appellants before the High Court be deferred. The matter was finally heard on 23.01.2024 when leave was granted.
3. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to briefly encapsulate the relevant facts so as to have a proper perspective of the lis.
4. Respondent was appointed as clerk typist in the SBI on 08.06.1973. He was promoted from time to time. On completion of 30 years of service, respondent was due to superannuate on 26.12.2003 as per the State Bank of India Officers’ (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979.
4.1. However, by order dated 05.08.2003 issued by the competent authority, respondent was given extension of service from 27.12.2003 to 01.10.2010.
5. On 18.08.2009, a notice was issued to the respondent by the appellant SBI calling for his explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him for violating instructions of SBI. The allegations highlighted in the notice mostly pertained to sanctioning of loans by the respondent in favour of his relatives in deviation of banking norms and missing of documents related to sanctioning of the loans.
6. On 21.08.2009, respondent was placed under suspension.
7. Respondent submitted reply dated 27.10.2009 to the notice dated 18.08.2009. However, it appears that the disciplinary authority did not accept such reply of the respondent.
7.1. Thereafter on 18.03.2011, appellants decided to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the respondent in terms of Rule 68(1) of the State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules, 1992 (for short ‘the Service Rules’ hereinafter). Deputy General Manager (Operations and Credit), NW-II, Jharkhand acting as the disciplinary authority issued show cause notice dated 18.03.2011 enclosing therewith articles of charges supported by a statement of allegations and a list of documents on the basis of which the charges were framed. The charges were the same as the allegations in the previous notice issued on 18.08.2009. Respondent was called upon to submit his written statement of defence within the prescribed period. It may be mentioned that the disciplinary authority had appointed an enquiry authority to conduct the enquiry against the respondent. On 29.11.2011, respondent submitted his defence brief denying all the allegations totalling 20.
7.2. Enquiry proceeding started on 24.05.2011 and concluded on 06.09.2011. Thereafter on 08.12.2011, the enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report to the disciplinary authority. Out of the 20 allegations, the enquiry officer held that 16 were proved; 3 were partly proved; and one not proved. The disciplinar
Penalty – No disciplinary proceeding can be initiated after delinquent employee or officer retires from service on attaining age of superannuation or after extended period of service – When a departm....
Disciplinary proceedings against a bank officer must be initiated with a formal charge-sheet before superannuation; otherwise, they are deemed illegal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings after an employee's retirement is subject to the provisions of the relevant pension and service reg....
The main legal point established is that the initiation of a departmental proceeding after an employee's superannuation, without issuing a memorandum of charge, is without jurisdiction and bias, rend....
(1) Disciplinary Proceedings – If extant service Rules/Regulations permit continuance of disciplinary proceedings, initiated against an officer/ employee before he had attained age of superannuation,....
Order of Appointing Authority dismissing respondent from service after granting opportunity of hearing to respondent, cannot be interfered with.
Disciplinary proceedings initiated prior to superannuation may continue post-retirement if service regulations so provide. Penalties, including reduction in pay scale, are legally permissible and imp....
Disciplinary proceedings under service regulations against superannuated officers commence only on charge-sheet issuance, not show cause notice. Post-retirement continuation invalid; use pension regu....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
