Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Sh. Dinesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India And Ors – Respondent
W.P.(C) 3439 of 2023
Decided On : 20-03-2023
Suspension - Service Matter - SBI Officers' Service Rules, 1992 - [Suspension] - [Service Matter] - [Rule 67(j) of SBIOSR, 1992, Rule 68(2)(ii) of SBIOSR, 1992] - The court found merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the Bank and held that the suspension order cannot be challenged at this stage as the inquiry proceedings had reached near conclusion. The court also upheld the order dated 11.01.2023, stating that the Competent Authority had decided to continue the inquiry further and give the petitioner a chance to present his defense in compliance with principles of natural justice. The court quashed the earlier tentative decision of imposing the penalty of dismissal, stating that such a decision can only be taken after the inquiry concludes.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of the State Bank of India, was suspended and faced allegations of lapses/irregularities. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the suspension order and reinstatement with consequential benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the Bank and upheld the suspension order, stating that it cannot be challenged at this stage. The court also upheld the order dated 11.01.2023, allowing the continuation of the inquiry and giving the petitioner a chance to present his defense.
Issues: The issues included the challenge to the suspension order, the propriety of holding a second inquiry, and the petitioner's request for enhanced subsistence allowance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suspension order cannot be challenged at the stage when the inquiry proceedings had reached near conclusion. The court also emphasized that a decision on imposing a penalty can only be taken after the inquiry concludes.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to participate in the continued inquiry proceedings. The court quashed the earlier tentative decision of imposing the penalty of dismissal and directed the petitioner to make a representation to the Bank for enhanced subsistence allowance.
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)--Present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
"A. Issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent No. 2 with the direction for quashing the impugned order dated 17.06.2021 and re inquiry order dated 11.01.2023 passed by the respondent No.2, and reinstating the petitioner in service with all the consequential benefits.
B. Issue an appropriate writ directing the respondents to pay the cost to the petitioner."
2. Petitioner joined the service of the Respondents/State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as `the Bank') on 14.03.1988 as Clerk/Typist and was promoted from time to time and lastly as Deputy Manager (Accountant/Service Manager). Petitioner served the Bank upto 14.06.2021, without any blemish. On 17.06.2021, Petitioner was suspended and against the suspension order, he filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 15.07.2021. Not getting any information on the status of the appeal, Petitioner filed W.P.(C) 11295/2021 in this Court seeking quashing of the suspension order and reinstatement with consequential benefits. Writ petition was disposed of on 04.10.2021 with a direction to the Respondents to decide the appeal within six weeks, if not already decided and if decided to communicate the order, enabling the Petitioner to take recourse to remedies available in law for assailing the appellate order. Thereafter, Petitioner was informed that his appeal had been rejected on 02.11.2021 and a copy of the order was sent to him albeit after a delay i.e. on 10.12.2021.
3. Charge sheet dated 22.12.2021 was served on the Petitioner and as per the imputation of charges, Petitioner had committed various lapses/irregularities in matter of cash shortage/misappropriation of funds from currency chest and ATM/CDM. Petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 14.01.2022 and thereafter filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 2543/2022 on 01.02.2022, challenging the order of the Appellate Authority pertaining to the suspension order. The writ petition was dismissed on 09.02.2022, observing that it would be appropriate for the Petitioner to join the inquiry as and when summoned by the Inquiry Officer and the Court observed that no ground was made out for interference at that stage.
4. Thereafter, Inquiry Officer was appointed and inquiry proceedings continued wherein several objections were taken by the Petitioner objecting to the procedure followed by the Inquiry Officer. After conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer rendered the inquiry report, a copy of which was furnished to the Petitioner to reply to the same within seven days of receipt of the report. Petitioner submitted his reply against the findings of the Inquiry Officer, whereafter he received a letter dated 04.08.2022, asking him to appear and submit written submissions, if any, through video conferencing on 06.08.2022, against the tentative order of imposing major penalty of dismissal under Rule 67(j) of SBI Officers' Service Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as `SBIOSR, 1992'). Petitioner requested for some more time and the hearing was adjourned to 16.08.2022. Petitioner appeared and also submitted his representation. Thereafter, a letter dated 11.01.2023 was received by the Petitioner asking him to participate in a second inquiry, which was opposed by the Petitioner. Aggrieved by the suspension order and the action of the Bank in holding a second inquiry, Petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the orders dated 17.06.2021 and 11.01.2023 as well as for a direction to the Bank to reinstate him with consequential benefits.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner challenges the suspension order on the ground that he could not be suspended without holding a proper inquiry and hearing the Petitioner. Despite the suspension order having been issued on 17.06.2021, Petitioner has not been reinstated despite passage of nearly two years. Petitioner is innocent and has an unble
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suspension order cannot be challenged at a stage when the inquiry proceedings have reached near conclusion, and a decision on imposing a p....
The court affirmed that an employee can be suspended pending inquiry for serious misconduct, even if the inquiry has not yet commenced.
The main legal point established is that a suspension order must be reviewed within 90 days as per the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, and failure to do so ma....
Unlawful cancellation of reinstatement order without due procedure and entitlement to pensionary and terminal benefits upon reinstatement.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the recovery of dues from a retired employee and the continuation of a departmental enquiry after retirement must be in accordance with the ap....
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
