Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.L. GOKHALE & DIPAK MISRA, JJ.
State Bank of Patiala & Another – Appellants
Versus
Ram Niwas Bansal (Dead) through LRs. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 239 of 2003 With Transfer Case (C) No. 79 of 2013
Decided On : 03-03-2014
(1993) 4 SCC 727 – Relied upon
AIR 1966 SC 951; (1974) 3 SCC 601; AIR 1963 SC 1756; AIR 1959 SC 923; AIR 1959 SC 833; (1997) 1 SCC 9; (1980) 2 SCC 593; (1997) 6 SCC 159; (1991) 1 SCC 249; AIR 1998 SC 185 : (1997) 8 SCC 713; (2002) 10 SCC 437; (2003) 12 SCC 1; AIR 1965 SC 1803; (1973) 1 SCC 813; (2002) 2 SCC 244; (1978) 2 SCC 144 – Referred
(b) Service Law – Departmental proceeding – High Court setting aside removal from service and reinstating the delinquent – Deemed continuation – For limited purpose of completing the proceedings – Final order of removal could have been issued only after completion of proceeding – Not from retrospective date of first removal. (Para 38)
AIR 1966 SC 951; (2007) 6 SCC 694; (2007) 9 SCC 15; (2011) 10 SCC 249 – Relied upon
(c) State Bank of Patiala (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979 – Regulation 19(1) First Proviso – No affirmative order of extension of service issued – Employee retired on completion of thirty years of service, on 25.2.1992. (Para 39)
1989 Supp (2) SCC 437 – Relied upon
(d) Service Law – Departmental proceedings – Deemed continuation – Employee not put under suspension – Removal from service on 23.4.1985 set aside by High Court – Employee retiring on 25.2.1992 – Fifty percent back wages would have been proper – Bank has already deposited 5 lacs in the High Court – Directed to deposit a further sum of 5 lacs. (Para 41)
(2005) 6 SCC 36; (2006) 2 SCC 282; (2007) 2 SCC 433 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Ram Niwas Bansal was an Accountant in the appellant-Bank. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 20.10.1980 for certain financial irregularities. Two supplementary charge-sheets dated 15.1.1981 and 8.1.1982 were also issued to him. An enquiry was conducted and the enquiry report was submitted to the General Manager (Operations) of the Bank holding that certain charges had been proved, some charges had been partly proved and some charges had not been proved. The Managing Director, agreeing with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the recommendations of the disciplinary authority, imposed the penalty of removal.
Bansal’s writ petition was placed before a Full Bench of the High Court. The Full Bench, ruled that non-supply of comments of the General Manager had caused serious prejudice to the delinquent officer and there was denial of fair and reasonable opportunity and on that basis set aside the order of punishment. However, it directed the disciplinary authority to grant an opportunity to the petitioner therein to reply to the enquiry report and pass appropriate orders after granting personal hearing to the petitioner therein in accordance with law.
The appointing authority passed the order of removal on 22.11.2001 with effect from 23.4.1985.
In further litigation the appellant Bank were directed to pay back wages to the deceased-respondent from the date of dismissal till passing of the appropriate orders in the disciplinary proceedings or superannuation of the petitioner therein whichever was earlier.
The questions arising in this case are: (i) whether the employer Bank could have, in law, passed an order of dismissal with retrospective effect; (ii) whether the delinquent officer stood superannuated after completion of thirty years as provided under the Regulations on 25.2.1992; and (iii) whether the legal heirs of the deceased-employee are entitled to get the entire salary computed till the actual passing of the order of dismissal, that is, 22.11.2001 or for that matter till the date of superannuation, that is, 25.2.1992.
Finding of the Court:
Removal from service cannot be with retrospective effect.
Judgment :-
DipakMisra, J. –
Ram Niwas Bansal, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents 1 to 4, the legal heirs who have been brought on record after his death during the pendency of this appeal, while posted as Accountant at the Narnaul Branch of the appellant-Bank in the Officer Cadre, was served with a charge-sheet dated 20.10.1980 for certain financial irregularities. Two supplementary charge-sheets dated 15.1.1981 and 8.1.1982 were also issued to the said officer. After explanation was offered by late Ram Niwas Bansal, the disciplinary authority appointed an Enquiry Officer who, after conducting the enquiry, submitted his report to the General Manager (Operations) of the Bank holding that certain charges had been proved, some charges had been partly proved and some charges had not been proved. The disciplinary authority concurred with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and recommended for removal of the delinquent officer from the Bank’s service to the appointing authority in accord with the terms of Regulation 68(1)(ii) of the State Bank of Patiala (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979 (for short “the 1979 Regulations”) and the appointing authority, i.e., Managing Director, agreeing with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the recommendations of the disciplinary authority, imposed the penalty of removal vide order dated 23.4.1985. The order imposing punishment of removal from service along with a copy of the enquiry report was sent to late Bansal who preferred an appeal under Regulation 70 of the 1979 Regulations before the Executive Committee which, vide order dated 18.7.1986, rejected the appeal.
2. Being grieved by the aforesaid orders, he preferred CWP No. 4929 of 1986 before the High Court for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashment of all the orders and for issue of appropriate direction to reinstate him in service with full service benefits. On 1.10.1993 the learned single Judge referred the matter to the larger Bench and ultimately the matter was placed before the Full Bench.
3. The Full Bench, vide order dated 22.5.1998, ruled that non-supply of comments of the General Manager had caused serious prejudice to the delinquent officer and there was denial of fair and reasonable opportunity and on that basis set aside the order of punishment. However, it directed the disciplinary authority to grant an opportunity to the petitioner therein to reply to the enquiry report and pass appropriate orders after granting personal hearing to the petitioner therein in accordance with law.
4. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order, the appellant-Bank preferred Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2442 of 1998 and after grant of leave the same was registered as Civil Appeal No. 773 of 1998. On 12.4.1999 this Court directed stay of reinstatement of the respondent therein with the direction that the Bank would comply with the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, “the Act”’). It was further observed that the Bank and its functionaries would be at liberty to proceed with the enquiry in terms of the permission granted by the High Court and any decision taken would be without prejudice to the outcome of the appeal. It may be noted that this order was passed when a prayer for stay of the contempt proceeding that was initiated by said Bansal before the High Court was made before this Court. Be it stated, this Court directed stay of further proceedings of the contempt petition.
5. On 20.8.1999 the Bank filed Interlocutory Application No. 4 of 1999 for modification of the order dated 12.4.1999 on the ground that Section 17-B of the Act was not applicable. On 7.9.1999 the employee filed another Contempt Petition No. 396 of 1999 for non-implementation of the order passed by this Court. On 6.12.1999 this Court, leaving the question of law open, dismissed the civil appeal as well as the contempt petition.
6. As the factual score would further unfold, on 10.7.2000 the B
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
