REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6821/2009

STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

C.K.KARUNAKARAN Respondent(s)

O R D E R

The respondent was employed with the appellant-bank in the

Middle Management Grade Scale-II and his promotion to Middle

Management Grade Scale-III came up for consideration in November,

1984 when he was interviewed by the Interview Committee which made

its recommendation to the promoting authority. In the meantime,

apparently the disciplinary authority took a decision to initiate

departmental action against the respondent on 28.1.1985. His

explanation was called for on 18.2.1985 and the charge-sheet was

issued on 04.11.1985. In view of the pendency of these disciplinary

proceedings, the promoting authority after considering the

recommendations of the Interview Committee issued a select list on

23.8.1985 but the result of the respondent was kept in a sealed

cover. The charge-sheet resulted in a punishment of censure to the

respondent on 28.7.1987 and thus the promotion was not given effect

to. The order of the disciplinary authority was assailed by the

respondent in departmental appeal and the same was dismissed on

13.12.1988 which attained finality.

1

Digitally signed by

RASHI GUPTA

Date: 2021.10.07

17:24:19 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

The grievance of the respondent was that despite the censure,

the sealed cover procedure having been adopted, the same shall have

been given effect to after the period of censure was over. In this

behalf the respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate

Authority on 26.11.1990 but the same was rejected and thus Writ

Petition being O.P. No.8947/1992 was filed before the High Court of

Kerala at Ernakulam directing the bank to consider the case of the

respondent ignoring the sealed cover procedure.

The Writ Petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge in

terms of order dated 30.5.2003 opining that the ex-post facto

decision of imposing censure could not be relied upon for denying

the benefit of promotion and since the decision dated 28.1.1985 to

take disciplinary action against the respondent was the only

impediment standing in the way of the respondent, he is entitled to

the benefit of promotion. The appeal was dismissed by a brief order

dated 30.5.2003 by the Division Bench which has been assailed in

the present appeal. Interim stay of the operation of the order was

granted on 29.9.2009 while granting leave. Respondent from the

inception has not entered appearance in the present proceedings.

We may note at the inception that of the impugned order itself

records that the respondent was subsequently granted promotion.

Thus the issue is only as to whether the respondent could be

entitled to promotion from an earlier date. The other factor which

has been pointed out to us is that the respondent retired in the

year 2003 and is stated to have received all retiral and pensionery

benefits.

2

Learned counsel for the appellant sought to canvas before us

that the appellant bank acted in accordance with its norms of

sealed cover procedure as per staff Circular No.118 (Exhibit P-2).

The relevant part of the Circular is as under:-

“3.

Keeping in view the principles of natural justice and

with a view to maintaining uniformity in this regard. It has

been decided to introduce the ‘Sealed Cover Procedure’ in

respect of officers in the Bank with effect from the 1^st

March 1983 on the lines followed by the Government and the

following guidelines are laid down for the purpose:

i)

The ‘Sealed Cover Procedure’ would be applicable in

respect of promotion/confirmation of the following

categories of officers:-

(a) Officers against whom disciplinary proceedings have been

contemplated provided there is a prima facie