Order of compulsory retirement held illegal.

1. The petitioner, an employee under the respondents, is seeking to quash, by a writ of certiorari the proceedings No. Staff/Con. 607 dated 5rd May, 1977 on diverse grounds, To decide the points raised, it is necessary to state the facts in a nut-shall.

2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Money Testor, on 19th August, 1946 and on securing various stages of promotion, in the year 1974 he was working as Branch Manager and was posted at Mappalla. He was kept under suspension by proceedings dated 13th February, 1976. He was served with a Memo containing seven charges on 27th October, 1976. The gravnmen of the charges levelled a gainst him is that he as obtaining illegal gratifications from that temporary attenders, watchman, etc. In his written statement dated 7th November, 1976, he denied all the charges and opted or an oral hearing. It was given. But instead, of passing orders thereon, the respondents communicated the impugned order, compulsorily retiring him from service, in exercise of the power conferred under the second proviso to rule 20 of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, for short, “the Rules”.

3. Sri Innayya Reddy, learned Counsel for petitioner put on the forefront of the contentions that the order though innocuous in that the order though innocuous in form, but in substance, is a stagmatisation as dishonest officer and would tantamount to punishment. Under the grab of compulsorily retiring him from service, the respondents cannot take the aid of the power under the second proviso to rule 20 of the Rules. The charges of corruption is the foundation and the form of compulsory retirement is the cleak of terminating the services of the petitioner. Therefore, the Court can go behind the form of the order and see whether the order, in substance, is in the nature of punishment. If it is in the nature of punishment, the failure to pass the order as contemplated under rule 5 of the Rules, vitiates the entire order; thus an error apparent on the face of the record crept in.

4. Sri Srinivasa Murthy, learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank contended that though the proceedings by way of penalty was initiated as contemplated under. rule 50 of the Rules, in fact, the compulsory retirement is not a penalty as explained under rule 49 and explanation thereto. Under clause (ii) of sub rule (2) of rule 50, the respondents have the power and authority. Instead of passing the order under rule 50 , the authorities passed the order compulsorily retiring him from service in exercise of the power under the second proviso to rule 20. There is no stigma attached to the order. The petitioner is entitled to the benefits which an employee is entitled after retirement or on completing of 25 years of pensionable service.

5. In order to appreciate the respective contentions, we have to see the impugned order, the material part of which reads:

“With reference to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against you vide your letter Staff/Con. No. 2252 of the 27th October, 1976, we have to advise that the Executive Committee of the Central Board at its meeting held on 13th April, 1977 after full consideration has resolved that in terms of proviso 2 to rule 20 of the State Bank of India (Supervisory Staff) Service Rules, you be retired from the Bank's service and that you be allowed with immediate effect to avail yourself of such leave as may be due to you preparatory to retirement. The Executive Committee has further resolved that the period during which you were under suspension be treated as not a duly and that no adjustment reed be made in the remuneration already paid to you during the period of suspension.

2. You are accordingly permitted 5 months 22 days of ordinary leave at your credit, as leave preparatory to retirement with effect from the date of receipt of this letter, at the expiry of which you will stand retired from the Bank's service”.

6. rule 20 of the Rules postulates that an employee shall retire from th