The judgment established the limited jurisdiction of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes under Article 338 of the Constitution of India and emphasized the statutory rules guiding the filing of complaints before the Commission.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

1. The challenge in this writ petition by the State Bank of India, is to the recommendation/order of the respondent no. l, forwarded vide letter dated May 13, 2014 recommending the petitioner Bank to consider withdrawal of compulsory retirement of respondent No.2 and initiate de novo enquiry to identify the HR failure, which lead to filing of the complaint.

2. The facts as noted from the writ petition are, the respondent No.2 joined the petitioner Bank as Clerk-cum-Cashier on July 20, 1978 and was promoted to JMGS-I on August 01, 1988. It is the case of the petitioner Bank that during the tenure of the respondent No.2 with the petitioner Bank, he committed various acts of misconduct like attending office in a drunken state frequently, misbehaving with the staff, frequently absenting from work, making withdrawals without maintaining sufficient balance in his bank account etc. due to which, the petitioner Bank was constrained to initiate disciplinary action against the respondent No.2. Vide letter dated March 30, 2001, the respondent No.2 was suspended. The respondent No.2 gave his reply dated May 31, 2001, wherein he admitted his lapses. Pursuant thereto, the Disciplinary Authority passed an Order of withholding one increment of pay for two years against him.

3. On March 26, 2002, the respondent No.2 was caught in a drunken state at Bande Branch of the petitioner Bank and he left the branch at around 12.30 pm without any sanction from the authority, taking along with him cash keys of the branch. He was suspended vide order dated August 12, 2002. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 was served with the charge sheet on September 30, 2002 and was given 10 days time to file his reply. The respondent No.2 submitted his reply and denied the charges. Not satisfied with the reply, the Disciplinary Authority initiated departmental enquiry against respondent No.2. The Enquiry Officer after completion of enquiry submitted his report dated June 13, 2003, wherein the charges were proved and was imposed the penalty of ‘compulsory retirement’ vide order dated October 6, 2003. Being aggrieved by the order dated October 6, 2003 the respondent No.2 filed a departmental appeal, which was rejected by the Appellate Authority on March 19, 2004. On January 19, 2005, a Writ Petition No.243/2005 was filed by the respondent No.2 which was dismissed as withdrawn on November 15, 2011 with liberty to approach the petitioner Bank. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.2 filed representation dated December 10, 2011 seeking withdrawal of the order of ‘compulsory retirement’ and to grant him benefits. The petitioner Bank, on May 28, 2012, replied to the representation of the respondent No.2 apprising him that the order of penalty has attained finality. Pursuant thereto, the respondent No.2 through Association filed a complaint/ representation on August 19, 2013 before the Commission (AP, MP, Chattisgarh) respondent No.1. On September 30, 2013, the respondent No.1 forwarded the representation made by the respondent No.2 to the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the same vide its letter dated October 19, 2013.

4. It is the case of the petitioner, that in its reply it had clarified that; (i) the circular on which the respondent no.2 relied upon is only directory in nature; (ii) if the punishment of compulsory retirement is imposed and if the officer has not completed 25 years of pensionable service or 20 years of pensionable service and attained the age of 50 years, he is not eligible to receive pension. Further, the circular referred by the respondent No.2 was issued in case of voluntary retirement and it is not applicable in the case where, disciplinary proceeding has been initiated and punishment has been imposed. It appears that, a further letter dated February 21, 2014 was sent by respondent No.1 advising the petitioner Bank to withdraw the compulsory retirement of respondent No.2. The petitioner Bank submitted its reply dated March 15, 2