Disciplinary proceedings initiated after an employee's superannuation are void ab initio under the relevant service rules.

J U D G M E N T

UJJAL BHUYAN, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.02.2020 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (briefly ‘the High Court’ hereinafter) in LPA No. 505 of 2016. Appellants are the State Bank of India and its officers.

2.1. Respondent, an officer of the State Bank of India (SBI), was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding following which the Signature Not Verified penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on him.

Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date: 2024.11.19 Reason:

Departmental appeal filed by the respondent against the dismissal order was rejected by the appellate authority; so also the petition for review. Respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of penalty as upheld by the appellate authority and the reviewing authority. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of penalty on the ground that the disciplinary proceeding was initiated after superannuation of the respondent including the extended period of service. Therefore, such disciplinary proceeding was held to be void ab initio and the consequential order of penalty set aside with a further direction to the appellants to pay the retiral and other dues of the respondent.

2.2. Appeal filed by the appellants was also dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court. Against such dismissal of the letters patent appeal, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11413 of 2020 was filed by the appellants. This Court by order dated 16.10.2020 had issued notice. As an interim measure, it was directed that the contempt proceedings stated to have been initiated by the respondent against the appellants before the High Court be deferred. The matter was finally heard on 23.01.2024 when leave was granted.

3. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to briefly encapsulate the relevant facts so as to have a proper perspective of the lis.

4. Respondent was appointed as clerk typist in the SBI on 08.06.1973. He was promoted from time to time. On completion of 30 years of service, respondent was due to superannuate on 26.12.2003 as per the State Bank of India Officers’ (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979. 4.1. However, by order dated 05.08.2003 issued by the competent authority, respondent was given extension of service from 27.12.2003 to 01.10.2010.

5. On 18.08.2009, a notice was issued to the respondent by the appellant SBI calling for his explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him for violating instructions of SBI. The allegations highlighted in the notice mostly pertained to sanctioning of loans by the respondent in favour of his relatives in deviation of banking norms and missing of documents related to sanctioning of the loans.

6. On 21.08.2009, respondent was placed under suspension.

7. Respondent submitted reply dated 27.10.2009 to the notice dated 18.08.2009. However, it appears that the disciplinary authority did not accept such reply of the respondent. 7.1. Thereafter on 18.03.2011, appellants decided to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the respondent in terms of Rule 68(1) of the State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules, 1992 (for short ‘the Service Rules’ hereinafter). Deputy General Manager (Operations and Credit), NW-II, Jharkhand acting as the disciplinary authority issued show cause notice dated 18.03.2011 enclosing therewith articles of charges supported by a statement of allegations and a list of documents on the basis of which the charges were framed. The charges were the same as the allegations in the previous notice issued on 18.08.2009. Respondent was called upon to submit his written statement of defence within the prescribed period. It may be mentioned that the disciplinary authority had appointed an enquiry authority to conduct the enquiry against the respondent. On 29.11.2011, respondent submitted his de