Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 2132
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SURESH KAIT, J
Onkar Prasad Jaiswal & Others
Versus
State Bank of India & Others
WP (C) 5267, 5268, 5600, 6234, 6963, 7739 & 8154 of 2011 & CM Nos. 10682 (for stay), 10684, 11426, 12556, 17533 & 18354 of 2011
Decided On: 18-12-2012
For the Petitioners:Tara V. Ganju, Etti Sharma, K.S. Kashyap & Sidharth Joshi, Advocates.
For the Respondent:R1 to R3 Rajiv Kapur & Vatsala Rai, Advocates.
Termination based on serious allegations of misconduct or misdemeanor constitutes a punishment and must comply with the requirements of Article 311.
Headnote:
Termination - Employment Dispute - Rule 16(2) of the Rules - Rule 16(3) of the Rules - SBIOSR Rule 27.14.4 - Confirmation Test - Unfair Means/Copying Allegation
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought relief against the termination order issued by the Respondent Bank. The petitioner was employed as a Clerk and later confirmed as an Assistant (Accounts and Cash) before being selected as a Management Executive (ME) in the Middle Management Grade Scale-II (MMGS-II). After successfully completing 10 months of probation, the petitioner was informed of his eligibility to sit for the Confirmation Test. However, the petitioner's name was not found in the results, and he was later accused of using unfair means during the test. The Respondent Bank extended the petitioner's probation and subsequently terminated his services without providing any explanation or opportunity to be heard.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the issue raised in the petitions had already been decided by the Apex Court in a similar case. The court referred to the judgment in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India and observed that termination based on misconduct, negligence, inefficiency, or other disqualification constitutes a punishment and must comply with the requirements of Article 311. The court directed the respondents to comply with the directions issued by the Apex Court and disposed of the petitions accordingly.
Issues: The main issue was whether the termination of the petitioner's services constituted a punitive action and whether it complied with the requirements of Article 311.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that termination based on serious allegations of misconduct or misdemeanor constitutes a punishment and must comply with the requirements of Article 311. The court also directed the respondents to reinstate the terminated employees and provide them with consequential benefits.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petitions and directed the respondents to comply with the directions issued by the Apex Court within four weeks.
SURESH KAIT, J
1. All these petitions raise identical issues, though facts of each petition are different, hence, all the aforementioned petitions are being decided by a common judgment by this Court.
2. Facts of W.P.(C) No. 5267/2011 are discussed inter alia, wherein the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs:-
“(a) Pass a Writ/Order/Direction in the nature of a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and declaring as non-est and invalid the termination order No.HR/L&D/458 (Annexure P-1) dated May 13, 2001 passed by the Respondent Bank against the Petitioner;
(b) Stay the operation and effect of termination order No.HR/L&D/458 dated May 13, 2011 (Annexure P-1) of Respondent Bank, pending hearing and final disposal of the present Petition;
(c) Issue a Writ/order/Direction, directing the Respondent Bank to declare the results of Petitioner for the Confirmation Test held on March 6, 2011;
(d) Pass a Writ/Order/Direction, directing the Respondent Bank to reinstate the Petitioner to its post as Management Executive in the Middle Management Grade Scale II or Middle Management Grade Scale III of the Respondent Bank, as would have been assigned to the Petitioner on the basis of the marks secured in the Confirmation Test and permit the Petitioner to perform his duties without any hindrance;
(e) Issue a Writ/Order/Direction, directing the Respondent Bank to pay the back wages to the Petitioner with effect from June 13, 2011 till the date of reinstatement of the Petitioner;
(f) Award costs of this Petition to the Petitioner.”
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that on the similar issue, the petitioner therein filed a petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 1298/2011 titled as Palak Modi Vs. SBI before the Allahabad High Court, which has been allowed vide order dated 17.11.2011.
4. The respondents have challenged the same before the Apex Court by filing Civil Appeal Nos. 7841-7842 of 2012 titled as State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Palak Modi & Anr.. However, the same were dismissed by the Apex Court vide its order dated 03.12.2012.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the facts of the case and the issues raised in the instant petitions are identical as has been decided by the Apex Court in the aforesaid Civil Appeal Nos. 7841-42/2012.
6. The facts of the aforesaid Civil Appeal Nos. 7841-7842 of 2012 decided by the Apex Court read as under:-
“4. The private respondents appeared in the test held on 27.2.2011, the result whereof was declared on 10.5.2011. Their names did not figure in the result apparently because Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (for short, ‘IBPS’), an independent expert body engaged in conducting recruitment for various services, which was entrusted with the task of preparing the examination papers and evaluating the answer sheets sent a report to the Bank that some candidates including the private respondents are suspected to have used unfair means. After four days, respondent No.3 issued letters dated 14.5.2011 and extended the probation of the private respondents for three months by invoking Rule 16(2) of the Rules. However, without waiting for expiry of the extended period of probation, respondent No.3 terminated their services vide letters dated 27.6.2011 by indicating that this was being done under Rule 16(3) of the Rules.
5. The private respondents challenged the termination of their services by filing writ petitions mainly on the grounds that the action taken by the concerned authorities of the Bank was arbitrary and violative of the rules of natural justice. They pleaded that during the period of probation, no one had informed them about any shortcoming, deficiency or defect in their work and yet their services were terminated without giving them notice and opportunity of hearing. The private respondents further pleaded that even though they had requested the concerned officers of the Bank to disclose the reasons for extension of
