1991 Supreme(Raj) 756
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
G.S.Singhvi, J.
S.L. Pandya - Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India and another - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 600 of 1991.
Decided On : 5-07-1991
The power of suspension under Rule 50A(1) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, 1979 is not absolute and can only be exercised in good faith and in public interest. It cannot be exercised arbitrarily.
Headnote:
SUSPENSION - STATE BANK OF INDIA (SUPERVISING STAFF) SERVICE RULES, 1979 - RULE 50A(1) - SUSPENSION OF EMPLOYEE - POWER OF DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY - SCOPE AND EXTENT - ARBITRARINESS AND UNREASONABLENESS - PROMOTION - DENIAL OF PROMOTION - ADVERSE REMARKS - ABSENCE OF - SUITABILITY FOR PROMOTION - CONTEMPLATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an employee of State Bank of India, was suspended from service under Rule 50A(1) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, 1979, on the ground of criminal prosecution proceedings initiated by the CBI in regard to certain irregularities allegedly committed by him. The petitioner challenged the order of suspension on the ground of it being arbitrary and unreasonable and on the ground that the action of the respondent Bank was malicious. The petitioner also claimed that he was denied promotion to Middle Management Grade Scale II although persons junior to him have been promoted.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the order of suspension was arbitrary and unreasonable as it was passed after a period of almost six to eight years of the alleged irregularities and that the Bank authorities had already taken disciplinary action against the petitioner and imposed punishment after due regard to the gravity of the allegations levelled against him but at no point of time considered it to be a fit case for placing the petitioner under suspension. The Court also held that the petitioner cannot claim that he should be promoted to the higher post in Middle Management Grade Scale II despite the penalty of reduction in pay.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of suspension passed by the disciplinary authority was arbitrary and unreasonable? 2. Whether the petitioner was denied promotion to Middle Management Grade Scale II in violation of the rules and regulations?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power of suspension under Rule 50A(1) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, 1979 is not absolute and can only be exercised in good faith and in public interest. It cannot be exercised arbitrarily. 2. An employee cannot claim promotion to a higher post if he has been found guilty of misconduct and punished, even if there were no adverse remarks against him at the time of consideration for promotion.
Final Decision: The writ petition was partly allowed. The order of suspension dated 20-10-1990 was declared illegal and quashed. The petitioner's claim for promotion was rejected.
JUDGMENT
1. - By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20th December, 1990 passed by the General Manager (Operations), State Bank of India suspending the petitioner from service. The petitioner also prayed that the respondents may be directed to treat him as promoted as Middle Management Grade Scale II with effect from 1/8/1984 and he be given all consequential benefits.
2. The petitioner joined the service of the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent Bank' on 28.2.64 as a Clerk. He received his promotions from time to time. In August, 1973, he was promoted in the erstwhile cadre of Officer Gr. II. In December, 1976, he was promoted as Officer Gr. I. With the implementation of the Promotion Committee's recommendation, the petitioner came to be placed in Junior Management Grade Scale 1 w.e.f. dated 1.10.1979.
3. The petitioner's claim is that he has discharged his duties sincerely and to the best of his abilities and to the utmost satisfaction of his superior Officers. No adverse remark has been communicated to him in his Annual Performance Appraisal Reports.
4. Between June 1982 to Feb. 1985, the petitioner had remained posted at P.R. Marg Branch of the respondent Bank at Ajmer. By a communication dated 25.4.85, explanation of the petitioner was called-for in respect of certain allegations of irregularities. Reply was submitted by him on 26.6.85. An enquiry was initiated against the petitioner under R. 49/50 of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') by issuing a notice dated Nov. 13,1987. This notice contains allegations of irregularities levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner denied allegations levelled against him. An enquiry was held in respect of the allegations levelled against him. On the basis of the enquiry report furnished by the Enquiry Officer, a penalty of reduction in pay from Rs. 4390/- to Rs. 2100/- was imposed on the petitioner in terms of R. 49(e) of the Rules by an order dated 4.10.90 passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Rs. 2100/- is the minimum of the time scale of Junior Management Grade Scale I. The petitioner has stated that an appeal has been preferred by him under r. 51 of the Rules but his appeal has not been decided so far.
5. In the meanwhile, a criminal case was also registered by the Dy. S.P ;C.B.I. Jaipur vide F.I.R. No. 35/88 in respect of the same very allegations which were subject matter of the departmental enquiry. Another F.I.R. No. 26A/89 was registered by the same authority. In respect of the first F.I.R. a charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Agency on 27.8.90 and in respect of the second F.I.R., a charge-sheet has been filed on 19.12.90. Cognizance has been taken by the competent Court in both these matters and the same are pending trial. On 20/12/90, the Disciplinary Authority (General Manager, Operations) had passed an order under R. 50A (1) of the Rules and he has placed the petitioner under suspension. The basis of the order of suspension is the launching of criminal prosecution proceedings by the C.B.I. in regard to certain serious irregularities allegedly committed by the petitioner in the matter of purchasing demand bills and Benami/Fictitious entries during the period of his working as Branch Manager at P.R. Marg, Ajmer Branch.
6. The petitioner has assailed the order of suspension on the ground of it being wholly arbitrary and unreasonable and on the ground that the action of the respondent Bank is malicious. In fact, the Bank Authorities have acted under the dictates of the authorities of the C.B.I. The suspension has been ordered after a period of almost six to eight years of the alleged irregularities.
7. The petitioner has also stated that as on 1.8.84, no disciplinary proceedings were either pending or contemplated against him. The Bank had undertaken the exercise for promotions to Middle Managemen
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
